Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Allen v. Moore

United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina

January 13, 2020

DERRICK ALLEN, Plaintiff,
v.
ANNETTE MOORE, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION, ORDER, AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          L. Patrick Auld United States Magistrate Judge

         This case comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (the “Application”)(Docket Entry 1) filed in conjunction with his pro se Complaint (Docket Entry 2). For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant Plaintiff's instant Application for the limited purpose of recommending dismissal of this action, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), for failure to state a claim.

         LEGAL STANDARD

         “The federal in forma pauperis [‘IFP'] statute, first enacted in 1892 [and now codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1915], is intended to guarantee that no citizen shall be denied access to the courts ‘solely because his poverty makes it impossible for him to pay or secure the costs.'” Nasim v. Warden, Md. House of Corr., 64 F.3d 951, 953 (4th Cir. 1995) (en banc) (quoting Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 342 (1948)). “Dispensing with filing fees, however, [is] not without its problems. Parties proceeding under the statute d[o] not face the same financial constraints as ordinary litigants. In particular, litigants suing [IFP] d[o] not need to balance the prospects of successfully obtaining relief against the administrative costs of bringing suit.” Nagy v. Federal Med. Ctr. Butner, 376 F.3d 252, 255 (4th Cir. 2004).

         To address this concern, the IFP statute provides, in relevant part, that “the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action or appeal fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). A complaint falls short when it does not “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (emphasis added) (internal citations omitted) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). This standard “demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Id. In other words, “the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id.[1]

         BACKGROUND

         Asserting claims under “42 U.S.C. § 1983” for violation of his rights under the “14th Amendment, Section 1[, ] 42 USC[] 3604(A) [, ] 28 USC 4101 [Slander and Libel][, ] 42 USC[] 3613(A)(1)[, and] 45 USC[] 3619, ” Plaintiff initiated this action against four defendants: (1) “Annette Moore” (“Defendant Moore”), (2) “Melvyn Blackwell” (“Defendant Blackwell”), (3) “Tara May” (“Defendant May”), and (4) “Marlyn Valeiko” (“Defendant Valeiko”). (Docket Entry 2 at 1-3 (brackets around “Slander and Libel” in original).) The Complaint states the following as the basis for asserting claims under Section 1983:

The above listed personnel[] are county officials working for th[e D]epartment of Human [R]elations. It is their job description to investigate housing discrimination. The above listed representatives fail[ed] to investigate [Plaintiff's] claim of housing discrimination.

(Id. at 4.) The Complaint's “Statement of Claim” states the following in its entirety:

[Plaintiff] applied for public housing with the [T]own of [C]hapel[ H]ill.
. . . [O]n 06/14/2019 [Plaintiff's] application for public housing was denied. [Plaintiff] appealed the decision of Angela Gerald [Housing officer I] ¶ 06/14/2019 and [Plaintiff] met with Director Faith Thompson on 06/18/2019 in which [Plaintiff] received a[] rejection letter from Director Faith Thompson on 06/24/2019 appeal.
Director Faith Thompson denied [Plaintiff's] application for public [h]ousing based upon information from the [F]ederal Bureau of Investigation [the “FBI”] . . . [which revealed that Plaintiff had been] convicted of [f]raud - [f]alse statement[, ] [p]ossession of [a] weapon[, ] and [t]ransportation of firearms[, ] which is not true.
[In] [C]ase No. 1:17-cr-00157[], [Plaintiff] went to trial and was found not guilty of [] 18 USC[] 922(A)(6) and was found guilty of [] 18 USC[] 922(G)(8). [Plaintiff] appealed . . . . Furthermore, [o]fficials at Human [R]elations in Orange County [f]ailed to investigate [Plaintiff's] clai[m] of [h]ousing [d]iscrimination.

(Id. at 4-5 (brackets around “Housing officer I” in original).) The Complaint also alleges that Plaintiff has been subjected to “mental angu[ish and] homelessness” (id. at 5 (emphasis omitted)), and further requests that, “[i]f the [C]ourt finds [that] discriminatory housing practices occurred, . . . [that he] be compensated in the amount of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.