Mauney v. Obama et al

Filing 64

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 12/18/2012. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(eef)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:11-cv-215-RJC-DCK
FRED WOODROW MAUNEY, JR.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CRICKET/BOJANGLES COLISEUM,
)
CHARLOTTE REGIONAL VISITOR’S
)
AUTHORITY, EX-POLICE CHIEF
)
DARREL STEPHENS, OFFICER DOES
)
1 THRU 20, JOHN DOE SECURITY
)
OFFICER, PATRICK MCCRORY,
)
ANTHONY FOXX, JOHN LASSITER,
)
EDWIN PEACOCK, II, PATSY KINSEY,
)
JAMES E. MITCHELL, JR., WARREN
)
TURNER, MICHAEL, BARNES, NANCY
)
CARTER, ANDY DULIN, and
)
WARREN COOKSEY,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court sua sponte. By Order dated November 28,
2012, this Court granted two Motions to Dismiss, (Doc. Nos. 35; 36), dismissing all of the
named Defendants in this action. Remaining now are John Doe Officers 1-20 and John Doe
Security Officer. John Doe suits are permissible only against “real, but unidentified,
defendants.” Schiff v. Kennedy, 691 F.2d 196, 197 (4th Cir. 1982). “The designation of a John
Doe defendant is generally not favored in the federal courts; it is appropriate only when the
identity of the alleged defendant is not known at the time the complaint is filed and the plaintiff
is likely to be able to identify the defendant after further discovery.” Anderson v. Davies, No.
3:10-2481-CMC-JRM, 2012 WL 1038663, at *6 (D.S.C. Mar. 28, 2012) (citing Roper v.
1

Grayson, 81 F.3d 124, 126 (10th Cir. 1996); Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir.
1980)). “However, once filed, it is incumbent upon a plaintiff to amend his pleadings to
correctly identify the specific individuals involved so that the matter may proceed to judgment.”
Id. As noted by the Fourth Circuit:
A district court is not required to act as an advocate for a pro se litigant; but when
such a litigant has alleged a cause of action which may be meritorious against a
person or persons unknown, the district court should afford him a reasonable
opportunity to determine the correct person or persons against whom the claim is
asserted, advise him how to proceed and direct or permit amendment of the
pleadings to bring that person or persons before the court.
Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1152-53 (4th Cir. 1978). Plaintiff names twenty-one John
Does in the caption of his Amended Complaint, but he has not made any effort to amend his
pleadings to correctly identify the John Doe defendants. See (Doc. No. 14); see also Schiff, 691
F.2d at 197 (John Doe suits are permissible only against “real, but unidentified, defendants.”).
Thus, Plaintiff has not “alleged a cause of action which may be meritorious against a person or
persons unknown.” Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d at 1152-53. Therefore, John Doe Officers 1-20
and John Doe Security Officer, the only remaining defendants in this action, are DISMISSED.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED in its entirety. The
Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

Signed: December 18, 2012

2