JOHN THE METHODIST AS REV. JOHN LEE MORRIS, SR. v. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NC et al

Filing 42

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by JUDGE THOMAS D. SCHROEDER on 5/9/2013, that the motions to dismiss filed by the Federal Defendants (Docs. 16 & 20 ) are GRANTED and Plaintiff's claims against all Federal Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PR EJUDICE; the motion to dismiss filed by the State Defendants (Doc. 18 ) is GRANTED and Plaintiff's claims against the State Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; the motion to dismiss filed by the County of Durham (Doc. 12 ) is GRANTED and Plaintiff's claims against the County of Durham are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; further that in order to protect the court, the named Defendants, and any potential defendants from the harassment of frivolous and vexatious litigation, Defendants� 39; motion for a pre-filing injunction (Docs. 28 , 30 ) is GRANTED, and the court issues the following injunction: the court ENJOINS Plaintiff, and anyone acting on his behalf, from filing any lawsuit, motion, or related proceeding that is related, directly or indirectly, to the matters serving as the basis of this lawsuit or any of Plaintiff's past lawsuits filed in this court that were dismissed as frivolous, in any state or federal court, without leave of this court. Leave of this cour t shall be granted only upon Plaintiff's demonstration, through a proper motion, that the proposed filing: (1) can survive a challenge under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12; (2) does not repeat a prior action or violate a court order; and (3) complies with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. The court ORDERS Plaintiff to attach a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Injunction to any such motion for leave of court. (Israel, Lisa)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

JOHN LEE MORRIS, SR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE
PEOPLE
OF
STATES, ET AL.,

THE

UNITED

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:12-cv-1359

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
AND PRE-FILING INJUNCTION
THOMAS D. SCHROEDER, District Judge.
This is a pro se action by Plaintiff John Lee Morris, Sr.
(“Morris”
alleges

or

“Plaintiff”),

broadly

that

the

who,

in

numerous

violated his constitutional rights.

a

handwritten

Defendants
(Doc. 4.)

in

complaint,
this

case

Before the court

now are Defendants’ motions to dismiss (Docs. 12, 16, 18, & 20)
and motion for a pre-filing injunction to enjoin Morris from
filing any future lawsuits, motions, or related proceedings that
are directly or indirectly related to this suit (Docs. 28, 30).
For the reasons set forth below, all motions will be granted.
I.

BACKGROUND
Morris has an extensive litigation history in this court.

He has filed five previous lawsuits that the court has dismissed

as frivolous 1:
1. John Lee Morris, Sr. v. North Carolina Court of
Appeals, et al., Case No. 1:02-CV-327. Dismissed as
frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) by Judgment
entered May 22, 2002.
Morris petitioned the U.S.
Supreme Court for certiorari, which was denied May
19, 2003.
2. John Lee Morris, Sr. v. North Carolina Appeals and
Supreme Courts, et al., Case No. 1:04-CV-213.
Dismissed as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) by
Judgment entered May 28, 2004.
The Fourth Circuit
affirmed.
3. Rev. John Lee Morris, Sr. v. Supreme Court of the
United States, et al., Case No. 1:06-CV-578.
Dismissed
as
frivolous
under
28
U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) by Judgment entered September 28,
2006.
The Magistrate Judge found the claims
“fanciful,
delusional,
irrational
and
indecipherable.”
The Fourth Circuit affirmed.
Morris sought en banc review, which was denied.
4. Rev. John Lee Morris, Sr. v. North Carolina Supreme
Court, Case No. 1:08-CV-98. Dismissed as frivolous
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) by Judgment entered
April 4, 2008.
The Magistrate Judge found the
claims
“fanciful,
delusional,
irrational
and
indecipherable.”
5. John Lee Morris, Sr. v. The People of the United
States,
Case
No.
1:10-CV-130.
Dismissed
as
frivolous by Judgment entered January 14, 2011. The
Fourth Circuit affirmed.
On November 19, 2012, Morris filed the present complaint in
the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, Durham
County, North Carolina (Doc. 4), and Defendant United States of
America removed the action to this court on December 21, 2012
1

On a motion to dismiss, the court may “properly take judicial notice
of matters of public record.”
Sec’y of State for Def. v. Trimble
Navigation Ltd., 484 F.3d 700, 705 (4th Cir. 2007).

2

(Doc. 1).

Morris names multiple Defendants that can be grouped

into two categories 2:
1.

“Federal Defendants”: United States of America;
the United States Postal Service; Judge Paul V.
Niemeyer, Judge William B. Traxler, Jr., Judge
Roger L. Gregory, Judge James A. Wynn, Jr., Judge
Barbara Milano Keenan, and Judge Andre N. Davis
of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit; Mr. William K. Suter, Clerk of
Court of the United States Supreme Court; Mr.
Jeffrey Atkins and Ms. Ruth Jones of the Office
of the Clerk of the United States Supreme Court;
Judge
Trevor
Sharp,
former
United
States
Magistrate Judge for the Middle District of North
Carolina (retired); Judge James A. Beaty, Jr.,
United States District Judge for the Middle
District of North Carolina 3; and Mr. Gill P. Beck,
Assistant United States Attorney for the Middle
District of North Carolina.

2.

“State Defendants”: The State of North Carolina;
The People of the State of North Carolina; Chief
Justice Sarah Parker, Justice Mark D. Martin,
Justice Robert H. Edmunds, Jr., former Justice
Edward T. Brady, former Justice Patricia TimmonsGoodson, Justice Paul M. Newby, and Justice Robin
E. Hudson of the Supreme Court of North Carolina;
Judge Robert H. Hobgood, Senior Resident Superior
Court Judge; Mr. Roy Cooper, Attorney General of
North Carolina; Mr. Robert Montgomery, Special
Deputy
Attorney
General;
and
Mr.
Grady
L.
Balentine, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General.

The basis of Morris’s claims against the Federal and State
Defendants

is

utterly

indecipherable.

His

complaint

vaguely

2

Morris may also have attempted to amend his complaint to list the
County of Durham as a Defendant.
(See Doc. 1, Ex. C.)
This is
addressed separately below.
3

Judge Beaty has filed a separate motion to dismiss.
(Doc. 20.)
Because its reasoning and analysis is the same as that of the other
Federal Defendants, the court will consider all motions together.

3

alleges violations of his constitutional rights in the following
way:
Notice for Criminal Action upon Ruling Justices and
Attorney’s
also\Clerk’s.
For
failure
to
order
investigation by F.B.I.
Also upon Killing of Black
Men. And Constitution violation.
(Doc. 4 at 2.)

In his demand for relief, Morris states that he

seeks $12,000 in damages from each Defendant and requests an
order that all Defendants receive “one year sanction of the Job”
or “leave this U.S.A. for 3 years for depriving the Plaintiff
out of his constitution [sic] rights.”

(Id. at 3.)

All Defendants now move to dismiss the action (Docs. 12,
16, 18, & 20), and the Federal Defendants move for a “permanent
pre-filing
future

injunction

lawsuits,

directly

or

barring

motions,

indirectly

the

or

Plaintiff

related

related

to

from

proceedings,

this

suit,

in

filing

any

which

are

any

court,

whether state or federal, without review by this Court” (Doc. 29
at 2, Doc. 30).
II.

ANALYSIS
A.

The Federal Defendants

The Federal Defendants have moved to dismiss this action
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted, as barred by absolute
and

qualified

process.

immunity,

and

(Docs. 17 & 21.)

for

insufficiency

of

service

of

The court finds that each of these

4

bases

provides

sufficient

grounds

to

dismiss

the

complaint

against the Federal Defendants.
First, Morris has ostensibly brought an action against the
Federal Defendants in their official capacities.
Doc.

4.)

Because

Morris’s

action

is

(See generally

therefore

against

the

federal government and its instrumentalities, sovereign immunity
is presumed and cannot be overcome without an express statutory
waiver.

Research Triangle v. Bd. of Gov. of Fed. Reserve Sys.,

132 F.3d 985, 987 (4th Cir. 1997).

Morris’s complaint fails to

establish a waiver of sovereign immunity or any basis for this
court’s subject matter jurisdiction, and it therefore should be
dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
Dismissal is also appropriate pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

A complaint that does not “contain

sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face’” will be dismissed.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
proceeding

pro

se,

the

court

will

Because Morris is

liberally

construe

his

complaint in assessing its sufficiency under the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).

However, despite this liberal construction, “generosity is not
fantasy,” and the court is not expected to plead a plaintiff’s

5

claim for him.

Bender v. Suburban Hosp., Inc., 159 F.3d 186,

192 (4th Cir. 1998).
In this case, the complaint contains no factual allegations
whatsoever relating to the Federal Defendants - any mention of
or

allegations

conclusory.
cognizable

against

them

In

fact,

the

legal

claim

in

are

court
Morris’s

nonsensical
is

unable

to

complaint.

and

entirely

identify

any

As

the

such,

complaint should also be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 4
B.

The State Defendants

The State Defendants move to dismiss Morris’s claims on the
grounds of insufficiency of service of process, the Eleventh
Amendment,

failure

to

state

a

claim

on

which

granted, and absolute and qualified immunity.

relief

can

be

The court finds

that all of these grounds are appropriate bases for dismissal. 5

4

Additional grounds supporting dismissal also exist but do not warrant
extended discussion in light of the clear lack of merit to the action.
For example, all federal judicial officials are entitled to absolute
immunity for claims arising out of judicial acts.
Chu v. Griffith,
771 F.2d 79, 81 (4th Cir. 1985).
The other federal officials are
entitled to qualified immunity for claims arising out of their
official duties, and Morris fails to plead that these officials
violated his clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of
which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457
U.S. 800, 818 (1982).
While the Federal Defendants’ arguments
regarding insufficiency of service of process are also merited, the
court need not permit leave to correct these defects insofar as the
action is doomed for the many reasons noted.
5

Here, too, the State Defendants note that dismissal is proper because
of insufficiency of service of process.
While the State Defendants’
arguments are merited, the court declines to grant leave to correct

6

First, Morris’s claim is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
The Eleventh Amendment forbids actions against state officials
for retroactive monetary relief.
159, 169 (1985).
North

Carolina

Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S.

The State Defendants in this case are all

state

officials,

see

N.C.

Gen.

Stat.

§

7A-10

(N.C. Supreme Court justices); id. § 7A-41 (N.C. Superior Court
judges);

id.

Attorney

General),

Morris

from

§§

114-1,
and

recovering

-4

(Attorney

therefore
money

the

General/Special
Eleventh

damages

from

Deputy

Amendment

them.

As

bars
such,

dismissal is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1).

See Blackburn v. Trs. of Guilford Technical Cmty.

Coll., 822 F. Supp. 2d 539, 542 n.2 (M.D.N.C. 2011).
Second,
Defendants,

similar
Morris’s

to

the

claims

allegations
against

the

against
State

the

Federal

Defendants

are

entirely conclusory, lacking any plausible factual allegations,
and devoid of a legal basis.

The complaint can therefore be

dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Third, the State Defendants are entitled to immunity for
actions arising out of their official duties as state judicial
officers

and

officials.

Specifically,

Chief

Justice

Parker,

Justice Martin, Justice Edmunds, former Justice Brady, former
Justice

Timmons-Goodson,

Justice

Newby,

Justice

Hudson,

and

these defects because the action is spurious and doomed to a dismissal
nevertheless.

7

Judge Hobgood are entitled to absolute judicial immunity for any
acts

arising

out

of

their

Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871).
Montgomery,
duties

and

as

qualified

Balentine

state

officials

immunity,

sufficient

facts

violated his

as

to

roles.

See

Bradley

v.

Claims against Defendants Cooper,
that

arise

are

Morris’s

make

“clearly

judicial

out

also

their

dismissed

complaint

plausible

established

of

official

pursuant

fails

statutory

to

these

that

Defendants

or

allege

constitutional

rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”
v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).

to

Harlow

Accordingly, Morris’s

claims against the State Defendants should be dismissed.
C.

County of Durham

The

County

of

Morris’s complaint.

Durham

(“County”)

(See Doc. 4.)

is

not

referenced

in

In fact, the only time the

County is mentioned is in a Certificate of Service attached to a
“Motion to Amend this Action upon Durham County Courthouse for
Negligence” that Morris filed in state court.

(Doc. 1, Ex. C.)

In his purported motion to amend, the only allegation Morris
makes is that “black men pull out college and kill by N.C. state
authorities.
Courthouse.”

State

authorities

(Id. at 2.)

try

kill

me

inside

Durham

The date Morris provides as to the

timing of these allegations is March 21, 2008.

(Id. at 3.)

This motion to amend was filed prior to removal of the
action to this court, and thus it is not governed by the Federal
8

Rules of Civil Procedure.

Kirby v. Allegheny Beverage Corp.,

811 F.2d 253, 257 (4th Cir. 1987) (stating that “the [Federal
Rules

of

Civil

Procedure]

do

not

apply

to

pleadings or motions prior to removal”).

the

filing

of

Accordingly, North

Carolina law will determine whether amendment is appropriate.
Pursuant to North Carolina state law, Plaintiff’s attempt to
assert a claim against the County does not relate back to the
date of Plaintiff’s complaint, as it seeks to add a new party.
Estate

of

Fennell

S.E.2d

629,

v.

633–34

Stephenson,
(2001)

354

(“This

N.C.

Court

327,
has

334–35,

554

directly

and

explicitly stated that while Rule 15 of the North Carolina Rules
of Civil Procedure permits the relation-back doctrine to extend
periods for pursuing claims, it does not apply to parties.”).
As such, the three year statute of limitations for negligence
would have expired March 21, 2011, see N.C.G.S. § 1-52, and any
claim against the County would be barred.

Even if it were not,

the motion to amend is plainly frivolous and without merit, and
any

claim

it

seeks

to

add

should

be

dismissed

pursuant

to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 6
D.
In
Federal

Pre-filing Injunction
addition

to

Defendants

moving
also

to

move

6

dismiss

Morris’s

for

permanent

a

claims,

the

pre-filing

In fact, Morris fails to name the County at all in his motion to
amend – his conclusory allegations involve “state authorities,” not
the County.

9

injunction that bars Morris “from filing any future lawsuits,
motions,

or

related

proceedings,

which

are

directly

or

indirectly related to this suit, in any Court, whether state or
federal, without review by this Court.”

(Doc. 28 at 2, Doc.

30.)
Under
courts

the

may

All

Writs

restrict

Act,

access

frivolous litigation.

28

to

U.S.C.

parties

§
who

1651(a),

district

repeatedly

file

In re Burnley, 988 F.2d 1, 3-4 (4th Cir.

1992); Abdul-Akbar v. Watson, 901 F.2d 329, 332 (3d Cir. 1990);
In

re

Martin-Trigona,

(“Federal

courts

constitutional

737

have

F.2d

1254,

1261

both

obligation

the

inherent

to

protect

their

(2d

Cir.

power

1984)

and

the

jurisdiction

from

conduct which impairs their ability to carry out Article III
functions.”)

Pro

se

litigants,

exception to these rules.
1189 (E.D. Pa. 1992).

like

Plaintiff,

enjoy

no

See Mallon v. Padova, 806 F. Supp.

As noted previously by this court:

The court is given substantial discretion to
craft
appropriate
sanctions,
and
an
injunction from filing any further actions
is
an
appropriate
sanction
to
curb
groundless, repetitive, and frivolous suits:
“A court faced with a litigant engaged in a
pattern of frivolous litigation has the
authority to implement a remedy that may
include
restrictions
on
that
litigant’s
access
to
the
court.”
Lysiak
v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 816 F.2d
311, 313 (7th Cir. 1987); see also Pavilonis
[v. King], 626 F.2d [1075] at 1079 [1st Cir.
1980]
(injunction
pertaining
to
all
pleadings and future lawsuits); Gordon v.
10

United States Dep’t of Justice, 558 F.2d 618
(1st
Cir.
1977)
(enjoining
continuing,
instituting, or prosecuting, without prior
leave of court, any legal proceedings in any
court); Hilgeford v. Peoples Bank, Inc., 652
F. Supp. 230 (N.D. Ind. 1986) (enjoining any
filings
or
proceedings
in
any
federal
court).
Armstrong v. Koury Corp., 16 F. Supp. 2d 616, 620 (M.D.N.C.
1998), aff’d per curiam, 168 F.3d 481, 1999 WL 11298 (4th Cir.
1999) (unpublished table decision).
Such a remedy is a drastic one that is to be employed
sparingly.

Cromer v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 390 F.3d 812,

817 (4th Cir. 2004).

Before a court can enter a pre-filing

injunction,

analyze

it

must

all

relevant

circumstances,

including: “(1) the party's history of litigation, in particular
whether
lawsuits;

he

has

(2)

filed

whether

vexatious,
the

party

harassing,

had

a

good

or
faith

duplicative
basis

for

pursuing the litigation, or simply intended to harass; (3) the
extent of the burden on the courts and other parties resulting
from the party's filings; and (4) the adequacy of alternative
sanctions.”

Id. at 818.

If such analysis reveals that an

injunction is justified, it must be narrowly tailored to fit the
specific circumstances at issue.

Id.

Here, these factors weigh heavily in favor of a pre-filing
injunction.

Morris

duplicative lawsuits.

has

a

history

of

filing

vexatious

and

This is the sixth lawsuit that has been

11

dismissed as frivolous.

A review of the complaints in these

cases reveals that his filings are nonsensical and not grounded
in law or plausible facts.
the

legal

bases

for

In fact, after six federal filings,

Morris’s

claims

remain

unclear,

yet

he

raises the same or similar indecipherable claims without any
facts to support them.
action,

which

lacks

This pattern is repeated in the current
any

good

faith

basis

for

its

filing.

Notwithstanding Morris’s personal beliefs about the merits of
his claims, the accumulation of six frivolous federal lawsuits
indicates that Morris is abusing the court system.

It would be

a waste of judicial resources to continue to review and respond
to Plaintiff’s specious claims.
The governmental employees Morris has sued should be free
from such unwarranted harassment so they can devote their time
to the legitimate matters before them.

Morris has left the

court no alternative remedy that would achieve the same solution
as a pre-filing injunction.

He has been told that each of his

actions is frivolous, and each has previously been dismissed
with prejudice, see 1:10-cv-00130, yet Morris has continued to
file

additional

frivolous

lawsuits

approximately

every

two

years.
Thus, after considering all of the relevant circumstances,
the court finds that a pre-filing injunction is an appropriate,
indeed necessary, remedy in this case.
12

Accordingly, the court

will enjoin Morris from filing any future lawsuits, motions, or
related proceedings, which are related, directly or indirectly,
to this lawsuit or any of Morris’s past lawsuits dismissed as
frivolous, in any court, whether state or federal, without leave
of this court.

This court will grant permission to file any new

complaint only if Morris demonstrates through a motion that the
proposed filing meets the following requirements: (1) it can
survive a challenge under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12;
(2) it is not repetitive or violative of a court order; and (3)
it complies with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.

The court

will also order Plaintiff to attach a copy of this Order and
Injunction

to

any

such

motion

for

leave

of

court

so

the

presiding judge is aware of Morris’s litigation history and the
restriction on his ability to file such an action.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that
1.

The motions to dismiss filed by the Federal Defendants
(Docs. 16 & 20) are GRANTED and Plaintiff’s claims
against

all

Federal

Defendants

are

DISMISSED

WITH

PREJUDICE;
2.

The motion to dismiss filed by the State Defendants
(Doc. 18) is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s claims against
the State Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and
13

3.

The motion to dismiss filed by the County of Durham
(Doc. 12) is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s claims against
the County of Durham are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that in order to protect
the court, the named Defendants, and any potential defendants
from

the

harassment

of

frivolous

and

vexatious

litigation,

Defendants’ motion for a pre-filing injunction (Docs. 28, 30) is
GRANTED, and the court issues the following injunction:
The

court

ENJOINS

Plaintiff,

and

anyone

acting

on

his

behalf, from filing any lawsuit, motion, or related proceeding
that is related, directly or indirectly, to the matters serving
as the basis of this lawsuit or any of Plaintiff’s past lawsuits
filed in this court that were dismissed as frivolous, in any
state or federal court, without leave of this court.

Leave of

this court shall be granted only upon Plaintiff’s demonstration,
through

a

proper

motion,

that

the

proposed

filing:

(1)

can

survive a challenge under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12;
(2) does not repeat a prior action or violate a court order; and
(3) complies with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.

The court

ORDERS Plaintiff to attach a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and
Order and Injunction to any such motion for leave of court.

/s/
Thomas D. Schroeder
United States District Judge
May 9, 2013
14