United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division
C. MULLEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MATTER is before the Court initial review of
Plaintiff's Pro Se Complaint [Doc. 1], Plaintiff's
motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 2]; and
Plaintiff's Pro Se “Motion for Memorandum and
Recommendation [Doc. 3].
September 19, 2019, Plaintiff Calvin Latimer
(“Plaintiff”) filed a Pro Se Complaint against
Defendant North Carolina Department of Transportation
(“DOT”). [Doc. 1]. Plaintiff's Complaint
consists of a compilation of a disorganized series of events
from 1993 to 2016. Plaintiff baldly states the following as
“reasons” for his Complaint: (1) Map Act
rescinded 7-12-16, (2) dealing with illegal behavior, (3)
violation of property rights, (4) failure to follow due
process, (5) eminent domain acquisition, (6) in violation of
the 14th Amendment, (7) civil rights, (8) 14th Amendment, (9)
human rights, (10) conspiracy, and (11) wrongful death. [Doc.
1 at 1]. In giving the Plaintiff the benefit of every
reasonable inference, it appears as best as the Court can
discern, Plaintiff claims relate to the following events:
1987, the Map Act was enacted. In 1993, an
“invasion” occurred at Plaintiff's undefined
property to which the police responded. [Id. at 5].
The day after the invasion the Plaintiff's wife had a
miscarriage. [Id. at 53]. On or around June 5, 1995,
an Order was entered by the Honorable Marvin R. Wooten,
United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Western District of
North Carolina, converting Plaintiff's bankruptcy from
one under Chapter to 7 to one under Chapter 13. It appears
these proceedings were made on behalf of Plaintiff's
business, Miracle Cleaners, located at 2229 Tryon Road
(hereinafter Plaintiff's “Tryon Property”)
[Id. at 58-9].
before September 22, 2000, Plaintiff's Tryon Property,
including equipment located inside, sustained fire damage.
[See id. at 39-40]. On or about September 22, 2000,
the Mecklenburg County Engineering and Building Standards
issued a Land Development Surety Bond in the name of
Plaintiff as the principal and Hartford Fire Insurance
Company as the surety. [Id. at 39]. On or about
September 28, 2000, a commercial permit was issued to
“replace fire damage to roof replace as built no
extensions or additions.” [Id. at 40]. In or
around October 2000, Plaintiff contacted the Charlotte City
Attorney's Office regarding options to reconstruct his
building after the fire. [Id. at 38]. Plaintiff was
advised regarding the limitations imposed by the traditional
setback that would apply if he were to tear down the
structure and rebuild. [Id.].
undated Notice of Lien filed in the Superior Court of
Mecklenburg County reflects that demolition services were
furnished on February 22, 2001 and finished on May 29, 2001
at Plaintiff's Tryon Property. [Id. at 51]. The
lien placed on Plaintiff's Property by the City of
Charlotte for these services was in the amount of $14,
219.50, with a 12% interest rate per year. [Id.;
see Doc. 1 at 55-57]. It appears the building was
torn down against Plaintiff's will after it was not
repaired or replaced after the fire. [Id. at 54].
Plaintiff alleges that “in 2001” he saw a sheriff
“with his rifle out, ” presumably at the Tryon
Property. The sheriff was “attending the man driving
the bull dozier [sic], ” who presumably was
demolishing Plaintiff's Tryon Property. [Id.].
Plaintiff states that he had a repair permit issued and,
therefore, believes the sheriff's “demolition
paper” was illegal. [Id.]. Plaintiff states he
was out driving at the time and “could have met them
anytime. That also, was part of the Map Act
behavior.” [Id.]. The documents Plaintiff
submitted also reflect that some sort of asbestos removal was
performed at the Tryon Property in or around February 2001.
[See id. at 47-8]. Plaintiff prepared a list of
“Equipment Destroyed by Demolition, ” which
appears to be dated April 15, 2001 and April 28, 2001.
[Id. at 44].
about August 7, 2008, Plaintiff requested that the City
reduce its lien total and taxes owed on Plaintiff's Tryon
Property. The City responded to the Plaintiff's request
by letter with a counterproposal on September 5, 2008.
[Id. at 50]. Handwritten notes on this letter state:
“under duress, which is illegal this attempt
to take land only???” and “No liens was
on the property??? Only land, the building was torn down in
2001. ???” [Id.].
about April 14, 2009, Plaintiff called the City
Attorney's Office regarding an alleged breach of a
purchase contract for Plaintiff's Tryon Property.
[Id. at 52]. The next day, an Assistant City
Attorney wrote the Plaintiff a letter, which states,
“As I mentioned, the City will not become involved in a
dispute solely between private parties. Accordingly, the City
will not offer to serve as a mediator or a ‘go
between' for the parties.” [Id.].
further alleges that the Map Act was rescinded on July 12,
2016, which “restored, the Constitution to it
[sic] rightful place.” [Id. at 13].
It appears the onus of Plaintiff's Complaint is based on
the following allegation:
[Eminent domain] was exchange with the Map Act, that
was later determined to be illegal. In 7-12-16.
Therefore, Case Defendant, tries to indicate, that
zonning created the error. Zonning, is a
product of the State not the Federal
Government. In conclusion is that the Map Act
alone with zoning DID the illegal damages listed.
[Id. at 14 (grammatical and spelling errors
uncorrected)]. Plaintiff, however, does not allege that his
Tryon Street property was actually taken under the auspices
of the Map Act.
damages, Plaintiff seeks $1.3 million in compensatory damages
related to the loss of his property, equipment, and income,
and $200, 000 for pain and suffering for the loss of his
unborn child. [Doc. 1 at 2].
MOTION TO PROCEED ...