United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Asheville Division
DAMON M. MOBLEY, Plaintiff,
HENDERSON COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants.
D. Whitney, Chief United States District Judge.
MATTER is before the Court on initial review of
Plaintiff's Complaint, filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
[Doc. 1], see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and
1915A, and Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in
Forma Pauperis [Doc. 2].
Plaintiff Damon M. Mobley (“Plaintiff”) has filed
suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the followings
Defendants: (1) Henderson County Sheriff's Department;
(2) Henderson County Detention Facility, including
“Medical/Nurses Station”; (3) Officer Tankersley,
identified as a courtroom bailiff; and (4) Officer Tipton,
identified as “Sheriff/deputy/Officer.” [Doc. 1
at 2-3]. Plaintiff, who was a pre-trial detainee at the
relevant times, purports to state claims for excessive force,
police brutality, assault inflicting serious injury, unlawful
behavior, defamation of character, and false imprisonment.
[Id. at 3]. It appears, therefore, that Plaintiff is
claiming that Defendants violated his constitutional right
not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment under the
Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by the use of
excessive force. Plaintiff's other claims, to the
extent they are recognized causes of action at all, are State
alleges, in pertinent part, as follows in support of his
Officer Tankersly abused his authority as a bailiff and
violently attacked, hit, struck me before body slamming me on
my neck while in handcuffs threw me into the wall so hard
causing the handcuffs to leave dents in the wall, grabbed me
around the waist in a wrestler type move and slammed me on my
neck upside down causing damager to my spine. Then ordered me
to “put my hands behind my back” which was not
possible because I was handcuffed to the front. I told him
that I couldn't because I was handcuffed to the
front… And thats when he grabbed my left ring finger,
and pinky finger and bent them back until they both snapped.
I screamed out in pain and thats when he “came
to” from whatever trance he was in at the moment. Then
he helped me to my feet and asked me what happened?? Its
all on camera! I told him what happened, he explained to
me that he “must've blacked out” and noticed
the immediate swelling in my left hand. Showed it to him, he
apologized to me over and over and called the nurse's
station back at the jail and asked them to check out my neck
and my hand.
The nurse seen how swolen my hand had become in that short
period of time and asked my permission to do x-rays. I asked
for xrays on my neck and spine, but was only given one on my
hand, which showed that both of my fingers were in fact
[Doc. 1 at 4, 7].
injuries, Plaintiff claims he suffered two fractured fingers,
swelling, and “damage to [his] already fragile spinal
cord, ” which makes “it hard to sleep, sit,
stand, bend over, lift heavy objects, etc.” [Doc. 1 at
5, 7]. X-rays of Plaintiff's left hand and fingers were
taken. [Id. at 9-10]. Although Plaintiff claims he
suffered two fractures, the x-ray report attached to his
Complaint simply describes the same fracture in two different
places on the report. [See id.].
relief, Plaintiff seeks $7.7 million in damages.
MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Court first addresses Plaintiff's motion to proceed in
forma pauperis. Plaintiff's affidavit shows that he has
had a total monthly income of $100.00 to $300.00 for the past
twelve months, and that he expects to receive no income next
month. [Doc. 2 at 1-2]. Plaintiff reports having no cash or
funds in any financial institutions. [Id. at 2].
Plaintiff reports that he has three minor children who rely
on him for financial support. [Id. at 3]. Plaintiff
reports that he has total monthly expenses of $828.00.
[Id. at 5]. Plaintiff states he cannot afford the
cost of these proceedings because he is “struggling to
provide” for his kids and is “always borrowing
money just to survive.” [Id.]. The Court is
satisfied that Plaintiff does not have sufficient funds to
pay the filing fee. The Court will, therefore, allow the
motion and permit Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must
review the Complaint to determine whether it is subject to
dismissal on the grounds that it is “frivolous or
malicious [or] fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
In its frivolity review, this 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). Furthermore, a
pro se complaint must be construed liberally. Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, the liberal
construction requirement will not ...