Hendon v. Redmond et al

Filing 10

ORDER DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE 9 Amended Complaint. Signed by Chief Judge Martin Reidinger on 8/28/2024. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.) (smm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:24-cv-00174-MR
VALCHIC HENDON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
JORGE REDMOND, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on initial review of Plaintiff’s Second
Amended Complaint [Doc. 9] pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 28 U.S.C. §§
1915A and 1915(e). Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. [Docs. 3, 6].
I.

BACKGROUND
Pro se Plaintiff Valchic Hendon (“Plaintiff”) is a pretrial detainee

currently housed at the Transylvania County Detention Facility in Brevard,
North Carolina. [Doc. 5 at 2, 4]. He filed this action on June 17, 2024,
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Defendants Jorge Redmond, identified
as a Buncombe County Legal Risk Department attorney, and FNU Reems
and FNU Smith, both identified as Officers with the Buncombe County
Detention Center (BCDC). [Id. at 2-3]. Plaintiff alleged as follows. On May
3, 2024, Plaintiff was being transferred from the BCDC to another jail.

Defendant Redmond told Defendants Smith and Reems to retrieve Plaintiff’s
flash drives, which contained video files depicting exculpatory evidence
pertaining to Plaintiff’s criminal case including or as well as “unconstitutional
wanton, and malicious sadistic behavior done in bad faith” resulting in
Plaintiff’s “false arrest and false imprisonment.” [Id. at 5]. Defendant Smith
retrieved the flash drives from a desk and gave them to Defendant Reems.
When Plaintiff was leaving, he asked for the flash drives. Defendant Reems
told Plaintiff he would have to get them from Defendant Redmond. Plaintiff’s
“petition” for the video files was granted. [Id.].
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint failed initial review for Plaintiff’s failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. [Doc. 8]. The Court
concluded that: (1) under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-44 (1971), it
should abstain from interfering with Plaintiff’s ongoing state criminal
proceedings, (2) that Plaintiff failed to state a claim for relief against any
Defendant in any event, and (3) to the extent Plaintiff sought to state a claim
based on the deprivation of property apart from the alleged evidentiary
significance of the flash drives, he had an adequate post-deprivation remedy
in state tort law and, therefore, failed to state a due process claim. [Doc. 8
at 4-5]. The Court allowed Plaintiff 30 days to amend his Complaint to
properly state a claim for relief in accordance with the Court’s Order or the
2

Court would dismiss this action without prejudice and without further notice
to Plaintiff. [Id. at 6-7].
Plaintiff timely filed a Second Amended Complaint, which is now before
the Court on initial review. [Doc. 9]. In his Second Amended Complaint,
Plaintiff names the same three Defendants in their individual capacities. [Id.
at 2-3]. Plaintiff alleges the following. On the morning of May 3, 2024,
Plaintiff’s property was stolen from him. Defendants “all conspired.” [Id. at
5]. Defendant Smith retrieved Plaintiff’s property and then Defendant Reems
“stated he took control of the property.” Then Defendant Redmond “took
custody” of Plaintiff’s property. Officer Tucker with the Transylvania County
Jail overheard Plaintiff talking to Defendant Reems, who stated “he was not
giving them back” because Reems thought Plaintiff “was sending it home.”
Plaintiff alleges this is “larceny from the person by false pretenses” and that
Defendants “are contributing to [Plaintiff’s] unlawful confinement by the
evidence [they] stole.” [Id.].
For injuries, Plaintiff claims he has suffered anxiety, headaches, and
heart palpitations. [Id. at 5]. For relief, Plaintiff seeks $200,000 and that the
videos be made public. [Id.].

3

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, 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 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
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).

4

III.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint fails initial review for the same

reasons as his previous Complaint. Plaintiff remains detained and complains
that Defendants have stolen evidence in his state criminal proceedings. As
before, this Court should abstain under Younger from interfering in the
ongoing state proceedings. Again, Plaintiff, through his attorney, should
seek access to the allegedly missing evidence in that proceeding, not here.1
Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 in any event. Plaintiff has again failed to state a due process claim
based on the alleged deprivation of property because he has an adequate
post-deprivation remedy in state tort law,2 and his allegations do not
otherwise implicate his constitutional rights.
Because Plaintiff failed to amend his Complaint in accordance with the
Court’s Order and has otherwise properly failed to state a claim for relief, the
Court will dismiss this action with prejudice. See Green v. Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., 790 Fed. App’x 535, 536 (4th Cir. 2020).

There should be no reason Plaintiff cannot obtain another copy of video evidence
previously produced to him.
1

See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) (stating that intentional deprivations of
property do not violate the Due Process Clause if a meaningful post-deprivation remedy
for the loss is available); Wilkins v. Whitaker, 714 F.2d 4, 6 (4th Cir. 1983) (“Under North
Carolina law, an action for conversion will lie against a public official who by an
unauthorized act wrongfully deprives an owner of his property.”)
2

5

IV.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Second

Amended Complaint with prejudice.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Second Amended
Complaint [Doc. 9] is DISMISSED with prejudice in accordance with the
terms of this Order for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim for relief.
The Clerk is respectfully instructed to terminate this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: August 28, 2024

6