Joiner v. Solomon et al
Filing
3
ORDER dismissing 1 Complaint for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff's 2 Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis is granted for the limited purpose of this Court's review. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 12/19/2016. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(nvc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:16-cv-396-FDW
RAYMOND DAKIM HARRIS JOINER, )
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
)
GEORGE T. SOLOMON,
)
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on initial review of Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, (Doc. No. 1).
I.
BACKGROUND
Pro se Plaintiff Raymond Dakim Harris Joiner, a North Carolina prisoner incarcerated at
Marion Correctional Institution in Marion, North Carolina, filed this action on December 16,
2016, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has named as a Defendant George T. Solomon,
identified as the Director of the North Carolina Department of Public Safety. Quite bizarrely,
Plaintiff also appears to have named himself as a Defendant. Plaintiff alleges the following facts
in the Complaint:
Based upon information and belief on October 21, 2016, I . . . filed a
grievance d[ue] to be subjected to long term segregation and denied access to my
radio and the right to have access to the media under the First Amendment of the
United States Constitution. The above defendant George T. Solomon contracted
with state courts and created a estate under my name without consent or a valid
contract agreement. The name Raymond D. Joiner, opus #0679537 is a fictitious
entity created to subject me to the bylaws of the agency of N.C. Dept. of Public
Safety which strip my individual constitutional rights and made me a subject
matter to being denationalized. George T. Solomon, Raymond D. Joiner, and the
1
Division of Adult Correction Prisons section (NCDPS) is all held responsible for
depriving my constitutional rights under the First Amendment and denationalizing
me and taking me out my proper person as an individual. Both Defendants acted
under color of law. The plaintiff has no plain or adequate remedy at law to
redress the wrongs described herein. Plaintiff has been and will continue to be
irreparabl[y] injured by the conduct of the defendants unless this Court grants the
declaratory and injunctive relief which plaintiff seeks.
(Doc. No. 1 at 3-4).
Plaintiff states that he seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, compensatory damages, and
punitive damages. (Id. at 4). Specifically, as to the declaratory and injunctive relief, Plaintiff
asks the Court to order “George T. Solomon and Raymond D. Joiner to stop depriving Plaintiff
his First Amendment right and to stop denationalizing him” and “to allow Plaintiff have his radio
and have the defendants surrender plaintiff birth certificate and show a valid contract
agreement.” (Id. at 4). Finally, Plaintiff has attached a “UCC Financing Statement” to the
Complaint, purportedly in an attempt to show that he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the State
of North Carolina.
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Because Plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court must review the
Complaint to determine whether it is subject to dismissal on the grounds that it is “frivolous or
malicious [or] fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Furthermore, § 1915A requires an initial review of a “complaint in a civil action in which a
prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental
entity,” and the court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of
the complaint, if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted; or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. In
its frivolity review, this Court must determine whether the Complaint raises an indisputably
2
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).
III.
DISCUSSION
The Court will dismiss this action for failure to state a cognizable claim against either
Defendant. Here, at most, Plaintiff alleges that he was deprived of the use of his radio, and he
contends that therefore his First Amendment “right to media” was violated. To prevail in a
Section 1983 action, a plaintiff must show that the defendant violated a federal right. See
Inmates v. Owens, 561 F.2d 560, 562-63 (4th Cir. 1977) (finding that to state a civil rights claim,
one must allege that he, himself, sustained the deprivation of a right, privilege, or immunity
secured by the Constitution or federal law). Here, Plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a cognizable
claim of a violation of a federal right and this action will therefore be dismissed. Furthermore, to
the extent that, by attaching a “UCC Financing Statement” to his Complaint, Plaintiff is
attempting to bring a claim that he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the State of North Carolina
for purposes of his underlying criminal conviction, this claim is wholly frivolous. See Thomas v.
United States, No. 5:13-HC-2050-D, 2013 WL 12112952, at *1-2 (E.D.N.C. July 8, 2013), aff’d,
568 F. App’x 239 (4th Cir. 2014) (“To begin with, the U.C.C. has no bearing on criminal subject
matter jurisdiction. Prisoners have sporadically attempted to foist such frivolous, irrational,
unintelligible UCC-related arguments on federal district courts for years. Such efforts (which
broadly fall under the theory of ‘redemption’) have uniformly been rejected in summary fashion,
and may subject their filers to prosecution should they proceed to file frivolous bonds, liens or
default notices against government officials involved in defendants’ incarceration.”) (citations
and some quotations omitted).
3
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff’s action is dismissed for failure to state a claim.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s Complaint, (Doc. No. 1), is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim.
2. Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, (Doc. No. 2), is GRANTED for
the limited purpose of this Court’s review.
3. The Clerk is directed to terminate this action.
4. Further frivolous pro se filings by the Plaintiff may result in sanctions for contempt of
court, including fines and/or federal incarceration consecutive to the Plaintiff’s
current state incarceration.
Signed: December 19, 2016
4
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?