Rankin Bey v. Mail Room Staff

Filing 5

ORDER that the Plaintiff's complaint 1 is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 07/02/15. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(emw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:15-cv-00127-FDW
NAPOLEON J. RANKIN BEY,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
MAIL ROOM STAFF,
Avery-Mitchell Correctional
Institution,
Defendants.

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on an initial review of the pro se complaint which
Plaintiff filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons that follow, this action will be
dismissed.
I.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a prisoner of the State of North Carolina who is presently housed in the
Avery-Mitchell Correctional Institution within this District. In his complaint, he contends that
unnamed individuals are opening his legal mail, in particular, mail that involves the “AttorneyClient privilege.”
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A)(a), “the court shall review ... a complaint in a civil
action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a
governmental entity.” During this review, the “court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss
the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint— (1) is frivolous, malicious, or
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a

1

defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b)(1) and (b)(2).
Upon 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). While a pro se
complaint must be construed liberally, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the liberal
construction requirement will not permit a district court to ignore a clear failure to allege facts in
the complaint which set forth a claim that is cognizable under federal law. Weller v. Dep't of
Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 1990).
III.

DISCUSSION

“To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by
the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was
committed by a person acting under color of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48, (1988).
Plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed for the simple reason that he has not identified any
individual defendant that may have allegedly violated his federally protected rights. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)(1).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without
prejudice for failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 1).
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this civil case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: July 2, 2015

2