Solomon v. Wake County Sheriff's Dept.
ORDER GRANTING 16 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. The Court has granted Plaintiff's request to amend the complaint, but Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED in their entirety. The clerk is directed to close the file. Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 3/19/2014. Copy mailed to pro se plaintiff via US Mail. (Fisher, M.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WAKE COUNTY SHERIFF'S
This matter is before the Court on defendant Wake County Sheriffs Department's
motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). [DE 16]. The motion is
ripe for adjudication. For the reasons stated herein, defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
The complaint in this action consists of a rambling list of actions, consisting of four
handwritten pages and attributed to no one in particular, taken towards the plaintiff such as
"harassment of myself," "secret peeping," "unlawful attempted murder on plaintiff," and "assault
by lacing marijuana." [DE 4]. The complaint was filed against the Wake County Sheriffs
Department on March 8, 2013 after Magistrate Judge William A Webb granted plaintiffs
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. [DE 3]. Plaintiff seeks $40 million in relief.
Defendant motioned to dismiss on January 9, 2014. [DE 16]. In response, plaintiff asked to
remove the Wake County Sheriffs Department as defendant and add Wake County Sheriff
Donnie Harrison as defendant. [DE 19]. The Court construes plaintiffs response as a motion to
Leave to amend should be freely given when justice so requires. FED. R. CIV. P. 15. It is
within the discretion of the court to allow or deny the amendment. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S.
178, 182 (1962). Defendant argued that the Wake County Sheriffs Department was not capable
of being sued, and plaintiff agreed and moved to replace that defendant with Wake County
Sheriff Donnie Harrison. [DE 19]. Sheriff Harrison is theoretically a proper defendant to this
action. 1 Accordingly, the Court grants plaintiffs motion to amend his complaint.
However, the second argument defendant makes for the dismissal of the suit against the
Wake County Sheriffs Department is equally applicable to Sheriff Harrison. Defendant alleges
that the allegations in the complaint fail to state a claim for which relief may be granted. A Rule
12(b)(6) motion challenges the legal sufficiency of a plaintiffs complaint. Francis v. Giacomelli,
588 F.3d 186, 192 (4th Cir. 2009). When ruling on the motion, the court "must accept as true all
of the factual allegations contained in the complaint." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94
(2007) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007)). Although complete and
detailed factual allegations are not required, "a plaintiffs obligation to provide the 'grounds' of
his 'entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555
(citations omitted). "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Similarly, a court need not accept as true a plaintiffs "unwarranted
inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments." Eastern Shore Mkts. v. JD. Assocs. Ltd,
The Court notes that plaintiff does not specify whether he wishes to substitute Sheriff Harrison in his official or
individual capacity. Although plaintiff does not state the statute under which he seeks relief here, the defendant has
interpreted the suit to be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Accordingly, the Court, giving the benefit ofthe doubt to
prose plaintiff, presumes that the suit is now against Sheriff Harrison in his official capacity.
213 F.3d 175, 180 (4th Cir. 2000). A trial court is "not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion
couched as a factual allegation." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
Here, the allegations in the complaint do not allege that Sheriff Harrison actually engaged
in any conduct whatsoever, much less conduct that violates the rights of plaintiff that are
protected under Constitutional, statutory, or common law. Rather, the complaint is a rambling
list of actions plaintiff alleges were conducted against him and his family. The Court has no idea
who is purported to have committed the actions or when the actions were purported to be
committed. Further the complaint alleges no theory for recovery. Rather it simply states that the
relief sought is $40 million. The complaint is woefully inadequate and fails to meet the Rule
12(b)(6) pleading standard delineated by the courts. Accordingly, the complaint must be
dismissed in its entirety.
For the foregoing reasons, what the Court construes as plaintiffs motion to amend [DE
19] is GRANTED, however, defendant's motion to dismiss is also GRANTED. Plaintiffs claims
are DISMISSED in their entirety. The clerk is directed to close the file.
J!!L day of March, 2014.
UNITED STATES DISTR CT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?