United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division
D. Whitney, Chief United States District Judge.
MATTER is before the Court on initial review of
pro se Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, (Doc. No.
26). Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis.
See (Doc. No. 7).
se Plaintiff Gregory Adams-Bey has filed a civil rights
suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land
Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. §
2000cc-1(a), with regards to incidents that allegedly
occurred at the Lanesboro Correctional Institution. The
Complaint was dismissed on initial review because Plaintiff
failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
The Court granted him the opportunity to file an Amended
Complaint which is now before the Court for initial
names the following as Defendants in their official and
individual capacities: Superintendent John Herring,
Correctional Officer and Security Risk Group
(“SRG”) Intelligence Officer Hatley, Prison
Emergency Response Team (“PERT”) Officer FNU
Gibbs, and PERT Officer FNU Adams.
the Amended Complaint liberally and accepting it as true,
PERT Officers Defendants Adams and Gibbs searched
Plaintiff's unit between 7:00 and 11:30 AM on February
18, 2017. Defendants Adams, Gibbs, and an unidentified
officer placed Plaintiff in handcuffs, and made him step out
of the cell. Gibbs stood outside of Plaintiff's cell with
him while Adams and the unidentified officer searched through
Plaintiff's legal property. Plaintiff saw Adams breaking
seals on legal envelopes and reading “VERY VITAL LEGAL
PETITIONS” and told Gibbs that he had “vital
LEGAL MATERIAL” that was being tampered with. (Doc. No.
26 at 3). Gibbs instructed Plaintiff to step away from the
door because he was not allowed to see what was going on.
left the cell with legal petitions and a flyer for the
birthday feast of “profit Noble
Drew-Ali….” (Doc. No. 26 at 4). Plaintiff asked
Adams to return the legal material but Adams laughed and said
“YEAH, MOORISH GUY, PRAY AND GET YOUR SHIT BACK!”
(Doc. No. 26 at 4). The legal material seized from Plaintiff
An Averment of Jurisdiction in appearance De Bene Esse
‘Special Appearance' Petitions to state and federal
courts challenging conviction & pending charge; proof of
Denationalization Motions Amended Complaint 5:16CTS 0202
Interrogatories, Petition for Discretionary Review to the
North Carolina Supreme Court, Supplemental Grievance on ADA
Connie Jordan of New Hanover County to the North Carolina
State Bar, letter/instruments to and fro the Colorado
Secretary of State, etc.
(Doc. No. 26 at 4).
claims that all of the foregoing pertained to civil rights
and liberty issues which he was hindered in pursuing.
Plaintiff stressed the validity of his legal materials and
that there were deadlines that would lead to default.
received a sanction charging him with contraband SRG
material. He was charged with a disciplinary offense for gang
or Security Threat Group (“STG”) activities.
Defendant Hatley made untrue allegations and sanctioned
Plaintiff, stating that Plaintiff used “SOVEREIGN
CITIZEN TACTICS BY ISSUING FALSE SUMMONS AGAINST STATE AND
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.” (Doc. No. 26 at 5). Hatley
classified him as SRG without a disciplinary hearing.
Plaintiff was never found guilty by a Disciplinary Hearing
further alleges that “Plaintiffs facts in averment
along with proof of the International Crime of
DENATIONALIZATION etc; with civil claims have been hindered
in being proved to obtain redress in litispendence.”
(Doc. No. 26 at 5).
seeks declaratory judgment; preliminary and permanent
injunction; compensatory damages; punitive damages; dismissal
of sentence in case number 12CRS58024, 12CRS9328; dismissal
of pending charge 16CR060166; a jury trial; costs; and any
additional relief the court deems just, proper and equitable.
(Doc. No. 26 at 9).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding in forma
pauperis, the Court must review the Complaint to
determine whether it is subject to dismissal on the grounds
that it is “(i) frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to
state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). In its
frivolity review, a court must determine whether the
Complaint raises an indisputably meritless legal theory or is
founded upon clearly baseless factual contentions, such as
fantastic or delusional scenarios. Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989). A complaint
should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim
“unless ‘after accepting all well-pleaded
allegations in the plaintiff's complaint as true and
drawing all reasonable factual inferences from those facts in
the plaintiff's favor, it appears certain that the
plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of his
claim entitling him to relief.'” Veney v.
Wyche, 293 F.3d 726, 730 (4th Cir. 2002)
(quoting Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231,
244 (4th Cir. 1999)).
pro se complaint must be construed liberally.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); see
also Smith v. Smith, 589 F.3d 736, 738 (4th
Cir. 2009) (“Liberal construction of the pleadings is
particularly appropriate where … there is a pro
se complaint raising civil rights issues.”).
However, the liberal construction requirement will not permit
a district court to ignore a clear failure to allege facts in
his complaint which set forth a claim that is cognizable
under federal law. Weller v. Dep't of Soc.
Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990). A
pro se complaint must still contain sufficient facts
“to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level” and “state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007); see Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (the Twombly
plausibility standard applies to all federal civil complaints
including those filed under § 1983). This
“plausibility standard requires a plaintiff to
demonstrate more ...