BOLDER v. MERRITT
Filing
15
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE signed by MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER on 05/15/2015. For the reasons stated herein, abstention is proper in this matter. However, the Court should stay the matter rather than dismiss this case with prejudice. RECOMMENDED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Docket Entry 10 ) be GRANTED IN PART, to the extent Defendant seeks abstention of this case based upon the Younger doctrine. FURTHER that this case be STAYED pending the resolution of the state court's criminal proceedings.(Taylor, Abby)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
\ørLLrE J. BOLDER,
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
P,\TRICK T. MERRITT JR.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
1,:1,4CY628
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter is before the Coutt on a motion to dismiss by Defendant Pattick T.
MettittJt. (Docket Entry 10.) Plaintiff WillieJ. Bolder fìled a tesponse. (Docket Entry
13.)
For the reâsons that follow, the Court will recommend that the ptoceedings be stayed.
I. Bacþround
and PlaintifPs Allegations
Plaintiff filed the Complaint on July 25,
201,4 alleging
that Defendant, an investigator
v¡ith the Cabartus County Police Depanment, carded out an unconstitutional seizure of his
cell phone during the investigation
of a homicide.
(Complaint S
V, Docket Entry 2.)
Around Apdl 29,2014, Defendant came to PlaintifPs house to request a statement about an
altetcation Plaintiff had witnessed. (Id.) Plaintiff answered the questions and agteed to
gunshot residue test but not a lie detector
test. (Id.) Defendant then asked fot
numbets off of Plaintiffs phone which Plaintiff gave. (Id.) Defendant then said
take your phone" because
it
had been used to contact the victim eadier
a
phone
"I got to
in the day.
Qd.)
Plaintiff was reluctant to give Defendant the phone fot a numbet of reasons, including the
storing of personal infotmation on
it. (U.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant stated that he
had no choice and had to hand over the phone. Qd.) Plaintiff then gave Defendant his
phone. (1/.) \X/tren asked, Defendant would not return the phone to Plaintiff. (d.) Plainttff
alleges that Defendant had no wârrant
charged with a cdme because
fot his phone. (Id.) Plaintiff
of a bank
alleges that he was
statement found on the phone. (Id. at
requests that Defendant be tetminated, that Plaintiff be compensated
5)
He
fot pain and suffedng,
and that any evidence connected to the phone be suppressed. (1/.)
II.
Standard of Review
Defendant argues that dismissal
is
appropriate pursuant
to
Fedetal Rule
of
Civil
Procedute 12þ)(6). A motion to dismiss püsuant to Rule 12þ)(6) tests the sufficiency
the complaint. Edøards u. Ci6t of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231,243 (1999).
of
,\ compiaint that does
not "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its f^ce"' must be dismissed. Ashnoft u. Iqbal,556 U.S. 662, 678 Q009) (quoting
Bell Atlantic u. Twombþ, 550 U.S.
plaintiff pleads
fac::ual
544,570 Q007)).
",\
claim has facial plausibility when the
content that allows the coutt to draw the teasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct." Id.;
see also
Simmons dv United Mortg. dv
l-.oaru Inuest.,
634 F,3d 754, 168 (4th Cir. 201,1) ("On a Rule 12þ)(6) motion, a complaint must be
dismissed
if it
does not allege enough facts
face.") (emphasis
to
state a claim
to telief that is þlaasible on its
in original) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). The "court
accepts all well-pled facts as true and consttues these facts in the light most favotable to the
plaintiff in weighing the legal sufficiency of the complaint," but does not consider "Iegal
2
conclusions, elements
enhancementfr]
of a cause of action,
bate assertions devoid
unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions,
or
of
factual
arguments."
Nemet Cheurolet, Ltd. u. Consømerffiirs.com, Inî.,591 F'.3d 250, 255 (4th Cir. 2009) (citations
omitted). In othet words, the standatd requires a plaíntiff to aticulate facts, that, when
accepted as ttue, demonsttate the plaintiff has stated a clum that makes
it
plausible he is
entitled to relief. Frands u. Giacomelli,588 F'.3d 186, 193 (4th Cit. 2009) (quoting Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678, and Twombþ,550 U.S.
Pro ¡e complaints are
^t
557).
to be libetally
construed
in
assessing sufficiency under the
Fedetal Rules of Civil Procedure. Erickson u. Pardrc,551 U.S. 89,94 Q007). However, even
undet this libetal consttuction, "gerì.erosity is not fantasy," àfld the court is not expected to
plead a plainttf?s claim for
him.
Bender u. Sabarban Hosp., Inc., 1,59
F.3d 18ó, 192 (4th Cu.
1ee8).
III.
Discussion
The abstention doctine of
Yoanger
u. Han'is ptovides that, absent extraoÍdtnary
circumstancesl, a federal court should abstain from intetfeting with a pending state cdminal
proceeding.
401.
U.S. 37, 43-44 (1971). Abstention is appropriate when "(1) thete ate
ongoing state judicial proceedings; (2) the ptoceedings implicate impottant state interests;
1 There are thtee exceptions
to the
Yoanger abstention tecognized
by the Supteme Court:
where (1) thete is a showing of bad faith ot hatassment by state officials tesponsible
for the prosecution; Q) the state law to be applied in the cdminal proceeding is
flagranúy and patently violative of express constitutional prohibitions; or (3) other
extraordinary circumstances exist that present a fhteat of immediate and irtepatable
i.i"ry.
Niaens a. GiÌchri:t, 444 F.3d 237 ,24'1. (4th
Cir. 2006) (Niuens II) (tnternal quotations and citation
omitted).
J
and (3) there is an adeq,tate opportunity to taise federal claims
in the state proceedings."
Martin Marietta Corþ. u. Md. Comn'n on Hanan Re/ations,33 F.3d 1,392, 1,396 (4tb C:r.. 1,994)
(citing Middlesex Cnry. Ethics Cornru'n u. Garden State Bar
A$'ft,457 U.S. 423, 432
"pflhere the State cdminal ptosecution is pending, the comity concerns of
(1,982)).
Younger u. Harris
and its progeny require abstention whete gtanting the requested telief would require
adjudication of federal constitutional issues involved in the pending state action." Trauerso
Penn, 874 tr.2d 209, 21,2 (4th
present case. First,
a.
Cir. 1989) (citation omitted). ,\bstention is ptopet in the
it is apparent here that the allegations in the Complaint involve an
ongoing state criminal proceeding. Plaintiff seeks suppression of evidence related to an
alleged unlawful seizute of a cell phone during a homicide investigatìon
.
(Jee
Compl.
S
VI,
Docket Etrtry 2; Pl.'s Resp. Br at 1, Docket F,ntty 7 .)2 "Second, North Carohna has a very
important, substantial, and vital interest in preventing violations of its criminal laws." Niaens
u. Gihhrist,319
F.3d
151., 754
(4th Cir. 2003) (Niuens
I).
Third, "ordinatily a pending
state
prosecution provides the accused a fau and suffìcient opportunity fot vindication of federal
constitutional rights." Gilliam
u.
Foster,75 F'.3d 881, 904 (4th Cit. 1,996) (internal quotation
omitted). Moreover, no basis exists to suggest that a
Yoøruger
exception is applicable hete.
Therefote, this Coun should abstain from futher proceedings during the pendency of
PlaintifÎs criminal mattet.
zPlanttff does not ârgue, nor does the recotd teflect, that the state cdminal ptoceedings have ended.
Moreover, according to the Cabarus CountyJail, Plaintiff is awaiting tdal for his murder charge. See
Inmate Detail,
http://onlneservices.cabarr-uscounty.us/p2c/InmateDetail.aspx?navid=635672066713041084 (last
visited May 1.4, 201,5).
4
In his motion,
Defendant seeks complete dismissal (with ptejudice)
of
PlaintifPs
claims as a tesult of the pending state proceedings. However, a stây tather than dismissal is
approptiate to the extent Ptaintiff seeks money damages.3
("State ctiminal proceedings do not
defendants-such
See Niuens
II,
444 F.3d at 248
. . . allow for claims of money damages by ctiminal
a claim is simpty not
available."); Traueno, 874 F.2d
at 21'3 ("fllh.
appropriate course is to abstain by staying ptoceedings on monetaty as well as injunctive and
declaratory claims."); Deakins u. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 202 (1'988) (holding that "the
District Court has no disctetion to dismiss t^ther than to stay claims fot monetary rehef that
cannot be redressed in the state proceeding)'); Sags u. Brannon,804F.2d274,280 (4th Cir.
1986)
("If the state criminal coutt rules that [a] search and seizure
was unlawful, [fedetal
plaintiffJ could not recover damages
in
dismissal wrth ptejudice is appropriate
in the ptesent case, the Court finds no reason why
those proceedings."). lØhile Defendant atgues
this case should not be stayed.a
III.
CONCLUSION
Fot the reasons stated above, abstention is ptoper in this màttel Flowevet, the Court
should stay the mattet rathü than dismiss this case with prejudice.
IT IS THEREFORE
RECOMMENDED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Docket Etttty 10)
GRANTED IN PART, to the extent Defendant
seeks abstention
be
of this case based upon
Plaintiff seeks to be "compensated for þs] patn and suffedng, stress and mental anguish."
(Compl. $ VI.)
a In to his request for damages and suppression of evidence, Plaintiff wânts to "press chatges" and
seeks termination of Defendant. (Compl $ VI, Docket Ently 2.) Plan:jlff notes that the only fotm
of appropriate relief appears to be "return of the phone and damages for its loss." (Jee Pl.'s Resp. at
3
1, Docket
Entry 13.)
5
ttre Younger doctdne.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED
that this case be STAYED
pending the tesolution of the state court's criminal proceedings.
L
St{fÈË h{45iÉtrú¡* Judge
Durham, North Carohna
}lf.ay 1.5,201.5
6
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?