United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Asheville Division
D. WHITNEY, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MATTER is before the Court on initial review of
Plaintiff's Complaint, (Doc. No. 1), and on his Motions
for Copies at No Cost, (Doc. Nos. 3, 4), and Plaintiff's
Motion and Request for Injunction, (Doc. No. 5). Plaintiff is
proceeding in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 13).
se incarcerated Plaintiff has filed a Complaint pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He complains about a number of
conditions at the Marion Correctional Institution where he
resided at the time he filed the Complaint. He names as
Defendants the United States, the North Carolina Department
of Public Safety (“NCDPS”), NCDPS Director of
Prisons Kenneth Lassiter, Security Risk Group
(“SRG”) Director Christopher Rich, and the
following Marion C.I. employees: Administrator Hubert
Corpening; Assistant Superintendent Donald Watkins; Assistant
Superintendent of Programs David Cotherin; Program Director
of RDU Julia Jenkins; Program Director of Rehabilitative
Diversion Unit (“RDU”) Program Gregory Swink;
Disciplinary Hearing Officer Robert Barker; Mental Health
Treatment Staff Dr. Murphy; Transfer Captain Donald Newton;
Sergeant Adam Hergenrother; and SRG Officer J. Nichols.
the Complaint liberally and accepting the allegations as
true, Plaintiff claims that he is being discriminated
against, denied equal protection based on his status as a
“Sovereign Citizen, ” “Natural
Person” and “Free Born Moor.” (Doc. No. 1
at 10). Plaintiff alleges that, since he entered Marion C.I.,
he has been “discriminated, targeted, prejudiced
against, deprived of constitutional rights and retaliated
against.” (Doc. No. 1 at 9-10). Plaintiff claims that
he is being erroneously classified as a gang affiliate which
has a number of impacts on the conditions of his confinement
that, he alleges, are depriving him of his constitutional
appears to complain that Defendants made unauthorized
withdrawals from his prison trust account in the amount of
$10 per disciplinary infraction. (Doc. No. 1 at 16).
Plaintiff claims that these $10 charges are fraudulent under
North Carolina law and the United States Code and are gained
through dishonesty, blackmail, and extortion. Plaintiff
claims that the $10 fines minimize the study or education of
law and may discourage other offenders from doing so, and
that NCDPS/DOC does not provide Plaintiff with adequate legal
assistance or information. Plaintiff further claims that
Defendant Barker deliberately and unlawfully charged
Plaintiff's trust fund account with excessive fines and
taxes, i.e., administrative fees, without
Plaintiff's consent or with the approval of the signatory
administrator, Defendant Corpening.
claims that Defendants lack jurisdiction over him because his
detention is “founded upon the ‘False
Identification' of [his] natural person … as
‘Black, U.S. Citizen.'” (Doc. No. 1 at 12).
Plaintiff appears to claim that criminal charges and/or
disciplinary infractions against him should therefore be
dismissed. (Doc. No. 1 at 13).
claims that he has a serious need for adequate mental health
treatment. Plaintiff alleges that he continued to place
mental health referrals for help with “deep depression
and to notify psychiatrist of mood disorders…, ”
(Doc. No. 1 at 13), yet Dr. Murphy deliberately failed to
provide adequate treatment and continues to house Plaintiff
in de facto segregation indefinitely without due
process or adequate treatments.
claims that he is being denied adequate recreation and that
he is forced to strip search in order to get recreation,
which results in 20 strip searches in a four-week timeframe.
He claims that these conditions have been imposed on him with
deliberate indifference to his health and safety, and that
the lack of recreation due to the implementation of excessive
strip searching is causing Plaintiff's mental and
physical wellbeing to deteriorate, caused by deliberate
indifference, negligence, and wanton infliction of mental and
claims that Defendants are depriving him of his First
Amendment rights by depriving Plaintiff of religious rights
and freedom because Plaintiff “know[s] and
understand[s] and truly believe[s] the ‘Holy Bible'
that in a God in which is Sovereign with unalienable Rights
supported by the very words of Jesus in the Holy
Bible….” (Doc. No. 1 at 14).
next alleges that SRG staff members are harassing him.
Specifically, Defendant Nichols placed gang-related
infractions against Plaintiff more than six times in a
seven-day period, and three times within 24 hours.
(Doc. No. 1 at 18). Defendant Barker entered a finding of
guilt in Plaintiff's disciplinary proceedings by
Defendant Nichols after being notified that Plaintiff never
reviewed any policy and procedures of NCDPS/DOC related to
what is and is not considered gang participation and what is
considered SRG. Defendant Barker deliberately imposed these
conditions and made that finding out of retaliation for a
complaint filed against him in case number 1:18-cv-90, which
violates the Fifth and Eighth Amendments, and that Defendant
Barker deducted excessive funds from Plaintiff's account
and burdened him with debt without consent or due process.
Defendant Hergenrother, who is former SRG staff, is in
cahoots with the retaliation, and “deliberately
placed” a “U.C.C. I-207 form” and used J.
Nichols to harass and prejudice Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 1 at
alleges that Defendants Corpening and Murphy deliberately
denied Plaintiff protective custody after being informed that
Plaintiff is in fear for his life at Marion C.I. “due
to discrimination and treated differently by
staff/Respondents” Defendants Corpening, Jenkins,
Cotherin, Swink, and Watkins [who are] ... depriving
Plaintiff of liberty and placement of harsher conditions than
other offenders, and by targeting Plaintiff for exercising
his rights and challenging Defendants' scope of authority
and inactions.” (Doc. No. 1 at 19). Administrators with
authority, i.e., Defendants Corpening, Watkins,
Cotherin, Jenkins, Swink, Murphy, and Newton, failed to
acknowledge Plaintiff's declaration of protective custody
and continue to deprive him of those requests.
claims that he suffered the following injuries as a result of
Defendants' actions: stolen personal property, pain and
suffering, depression, stress, intentional interference,
unlawful detainer, intentional inflicted emotional distress,
loss of personal property, post-traumatic stress, theft of
personal property, eating disorders, modes disorders, fraud,
unlawful levy, denationalization, defamation of character,
cruel and unusual punishment, forcible detainer, lack of
trust, sleeping difficulties, intentional inflicted emotional
distress, and severe systematic psychological abuse. (Doc.
No. 1 at 3).
seeks damages, transfer, discovery, judgment on the
pleadings, partial summary judgment, all other relief the
Court deems just and equitable, and a jury trial. (Doc. No. 1
at 5). Plaintiff also seeks an injunction because he fears
another reprisal that may lead to more irreparable injuries
by the Defendants “or employees that may hold a
vendetta against Plaintiff for the filing of this good faith
complaint….” (Doc. No. 1 at 19). Plaintiff
claims that he should be granted judgment as a matter of law
because he has presented a prima facie case. He
lists discovery requests that he seeks. He further argues
that partial summary judgment should be granted because his
exhibits show no genuine ...