Ragin v. Lockwood

Filing 9

ORDER that: (1) Pltf's 1 Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii); (2) Pltf shall have 30 days in which to amend his Complaint in accordance with the terms of this Orde r; and if Pltf fails to so amend his Complaint, the matter will be dismissed without further notice. (Amended Complaint due by 3/8/2024.) The Clerk is respectfully instructed to mail Pltf a blank § 1983 complaint form and a copy of this Order. Signed by Chief Judge Martin Reidinger on 2/7/2024. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.) (ejb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:23-cv-00313-MR

ERRIE RAGIN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
SHEKINA LOCKWOOD,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on initial review of the pro se
Complaint [Doc. 1]. The Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. [Doc. 8].
I.

BACKGROUND
The pro se incarcerated Plaintiff appears to have filed this action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, addressing an incident that allegedly occurred
at the Marion Correctional Institution.1 The Plaintiff names as the sole
Defendant Shekina Lockwood, a correctional officer at the Marion CI. He
describes the nature of the case as “[w]rongfully accused of exposing myself
to a correction officer.” [Doc. 1 at 2]. He states his cause of action as follows:

1

The Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at the Foothills Correctional Institution.

Count 1: Excessive Force
Sprayed me with mace excessively for which she thought I
expose myself to her which I did not.
[Id. at 4] (errors uncorrected).
For injury, the Plaintiff states:
Yes I know wear glasses and when I came to prison I had perfect
vision now my vision is poor in left and right eye.
[Id.] (errors uncorrected). The Plaintiff seeks damages. [Id. at 5].
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Because the Plaintiff is proceeding 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, under § 1915A
the Court must conduct an initial review and identify and dismiss the
complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if it 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 to such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
In its frivolity review, this Court must determine whether a 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). Furthermore, a pro se
2

complaint must be construed liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972).

However, the liberal construction requirement will not permit a

district court to ignore a clear failure to allege facts in his Complaint which
set forth a claim that is cognizable under federal law. Weller v. Dep’t of Soc.
Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990).
III.

DISCUSSION
To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that he was

deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States,
and that the alleged deprivation was committed by a “person” acting under
color of state law. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan,
526 U.S. 40, 49-50 (1999); Health & Hosp. Corp. of Marion Cnty. v. Talevski,
599 U.S. 166 (2023).
The Eighth Amendment prohibits the infliction of “cruel and unusual
punishments,” U.S. CONST. amend. VIII, and protects prisoners from the
“unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312,
319 (1986). To establish an Eighth Amendment claim, an inmate must
satisfy both an objective component–that the harm inflicted was sufficiently
serious–and a subjective component–that the prison official acted with a
sufficiently culpable state of mind. Williams v. Benjamin, 77 F.3d 756, 761
(4th Cir. 1996). In adjudicating an excessive force claim, the Court must
3

consider such factors as the need for the use of force, the relationship
between that need and the amount of force used, the extent of the injury
inflicted, and, ultimately, whether the force was “applied in a good faith effort
to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically for the very
purpose of causing harm.” Whitley, 475 U.S. at 320-21.
Here, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant pepper sprayed him
“excessively” on the mistaken belief that he had exposed himself; however,
he has failed to plausibly allege that the Defendant acted with a sufficiently
culpable state of mind. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (requiring a “short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”);
Simpson v. Welch, 900 F.2d 33, 35 (4th Cir. 1990) (conclusory allegations,
unsupported by specific allegations of material fact are not sufficient);
Dickson v. Microsoft Corp., 309 F.3d 193, 201-02 (4th Cir. 2002) (a pleader
must allege facts, directly or indirectly, that support each element of the
claim). The allegations are too vague and conclusory to state a plausible
excessive force claim and, accordingly, the Complaint will be dismissed
without prejudice.
IV.

CONCLUSION
In sum, the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim, and the Complaint is

dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii).
4

The Court will allow Plaintiff thirty (30) days to amend his Complaint, if
he so chooses, to properly state a claim upon which relief can be granted, in
accordance with the terms of this Order. Any amended complaint will be
subject to all timeliness and procedural requirements and will supersede the
Complaint. Piecemeal amendment will not be permitted. Should the Plaintiff
fail to timely amend his Complaint in accordance with this Order, the Court
will dismiss this action without further notice.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. The Complaint [Doc. 1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii).
2. The Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days in which to amend his
Complaint in accordance with the terms of this Order. If Plaintiff
fails to so amend his Complaint, the matter will be dismissed
without further notice.
The Clerk is respectfully instructed to mail the Plaintiff a blank § 1983
complaint form and a copy of this Order.
Signed: February 7, 2024

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5