Hendon v. Hill

Filing 5

ORDER on initial review of the Complaint. The Plaintiffs Complaint [Doc. 1] passes initial review against Defendant Hill for the use of excessive force.The remaining claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by District Judge Frank D. Whitney on 11/25/24. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(clc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:24-cv-183-FDW
VALCHIC WENDELL HENDON,1

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
FNU HILL,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on initial review of the Complaint [Doc. 1]. Plaintiff
is proceeding in forma pauperis. [Doc. 4].
I.

BACKGROUND
The pro se Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee at the Transylvania County Detention Center

(“TCDC”). He filed this civil rights suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against FNU Hill, a
“transport c.o.” on claims for “excessive force, physical brutality and violating the 5th and 14th
Amendments of the United States Constitution.”2 [Doc. 1 at 3]. He alleges:
Jun 6 24 2:00/2:30 I was walking to my cell then Officer Hill of the [TCDC]
maliciously sadistically used excessive force to intentionally to inflict pain and to
[illegible] by grabing me from behind then throwing me against walls windows and
trashcan. This was a dilbrate means to cause harm rather than to keep order or to
restore discipline. I have wrote Officer Hill up for opening my legal mail so I put
in a grievance. So this may be retaliation. I also put in a grievance for this and I was
told it was handle in my internal affairs approperatly and I could not find out what
was done because it’s in his personal file. Other officers joined in I was not resisting
the assault. Due to it happening from behind and I didn’t have a clue what was
The Transylvania County Detention Center’s website indicates that the Plaintiff’s name is Valachie Wendell
Hendon. [See Doc. 4]; https://www.ncinmatesearch.org/Transylvania_County.html (last accessed Nov. 12, 2024);
Fed. R. Ev. 201.
1

2

The Court will address the claims that are reasonably suggested by the allegations without regard for the titles that
the Plaintiff has assigned them. See generally Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).

going on or why not intil other detainees told the officers to stop that’s when they
put me in a cell. I since pettion the court for the fixed camera footage.
[Id. at 3-4] (errors uncorrected). The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and damages. [Id. at 4].
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Because 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 “(i) frivolous or malicious; (ii)
fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
(requiring frivolity review for prisoners’ civil actions seeking redress from governmental entities,
officers, or employees).
In its frivolity review, a 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
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 body of the Complaint contains allegations that are not directed to Defendant Hill.
2

[See, e.g., Doc. 1 at 3 (referring to “other officers”)]; Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a) (“The title of the
complaint must name all the parties[.]”); Myles v. United States, 416 F.3d 551 (7th Cir. 2005)
(“[T]o make someone a party the plaintiff must specify him in the caption and arrange for service
of process.”); Perez v. Humphries, No. 3:18-cv-107-GCM, 2018 WL 4705560, at *1 (W.D.N.C.
Oct. 1, 2018) (“A plaintiff’s failure to name a defendant in the caption of a Complaint renders any
action against the purported defendant a legal nullity.”). These claims are also too vague and
conclusory to proceed in that the Plaintiff has failed to adequately identify the individuals to whom
he refers. 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 that are not attributed
to Defendant Hill are, therefore, dismissed without prejudice.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Hill used excessive force against him. The Fourteenth
Amendment “protects a pretrial detainee from the use of excessive force that amounts to
punishment.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 n.10 (1989). To state an excessive force
claim, a pretrial detainee must show only that the force “purposely or knowingly used against him
was objectively unreasonable.” Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015). The standard for
assessing a pretrial detainee’s excessive force claim is “solely an objective one.”

Id.

In

determining whether the force was objectively unreasonable, a court considers the evidence “from
the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, including what the officer knew at the time,
not with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” Id. (citing Graham, 490 U.S. at 396).

3

Taking the Plaintiff’s allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor,
the Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant Hill used excessive force against him passes initial review in
that it is not clearly frivolous.
The Plaintiff also appears to assert a claim for retaliation against Defendant Hill. An inmate
has a clearly established First Amendment right to be free from retaliation for filing lawsuits. See
Booker v. S.C. Dep’t of Corrs., 855 F.3d 533, 540 (4th Cir. 2017); Thompson v. Commonwealth
of Va., 878 F.3d 89, 110 (4th Cir. 2017). Inmates also have a protected First Amendment right to
complain to prison officials about prison conditions and improper treatment by prison employees
that affect them. See Patton v. Kimble, 717 Fed. App’x 271, 272 (4th Cir. 2018).
To state a colorable First Amendment retaliation claim, a plaintiff must allege that (1) he
engaged in protected First Amendment activity, (2) the defendant took some action that adversely
affected his First Amendment rights, and (3) there was a causal relationship between his protected
activity and the defendant’s conduct. Martin v. Duffy, 977 F.3d 294, 299 (4th Cir. 2020) (quotation
marks and citation omitted). Retaliation claims brought by prisoners, however, are treated with
skepticism because every act of discipline by a prison official is retaliatory in that it responds
directly to prisoner misconduct. See Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 74 (4th Cir. 1994). More, bare or
conclusory assertions of retaliation are insufficient to establish a retaliation claim. Id., 40 F.3d at
74.
Here, the Plaintiff’s allegations are too vague and conclusory to state a plausible retaliation
claim. He alleges only that he “wrote Officer Hill” up on a mail complaint at some point before
the excessive force incident allegedly occurred. His speculation that this “may be retaliation” is
insufficient to state a plausible retaliation claim. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s retaliation claim is
dismissed without prejudice.

4

Finally, the Plaintiff claims that Defendant Hill violated his Fifth Amendment rights. [Doc.
1 at 3]. However, this claim is not supported by any factual allegations whatsoever. The Plaintiff’s
claim for a Fifth Amendment violation is, therefore, dismissed without prejudice.
IV.

CONCLUSION
In sum, Plaintiff’s Complaint passes initial review against Defendant Hill for the use of

excessive force, and the remaining claims are dismissed without prejudice.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. The Plaintiff’s Complaint [Doc. 1] passes initial review against Defendant Hill for
the use of excessive force.
2. The remaining claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
3. The Clerk is respectfully instructed to mail a blank summons form to the Plaintiff,
which the Plaintiff shall fill out and return for service of process on Defendant Hill.
Once the Court receives the completed summonses from Plaintiff, the Clerk shall
direct the U.S. Marshal to effectuate service upon the Defendant.
The Clerk is respectfully instructed to note in the Court’s record that the Plaintiff is also
known as “Valachie Wendell Hendon.”
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: November 25, 2024

5