Morris v. Michealle

Filing 17

ORDER granting in part denying in part 14 Letter (construed as a Motion to Amend); Plaintiff shall be permitted to replace Mattos Michealle with John Doe; within 20 days CMPD shall provide the name of arresting officer. Signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 3/5/2012. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.) (tmg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:11-cv-417-RJC
WILLIAM HENRY MORRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.
MATTOS MICHEALLE,

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on a Letter from Plaintiff dated February 6,
2012, (Doc. No. 14), which the Court construes as a Motion to Amend.
I.

DISCUSSION
In his Complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff alleged that on October 25,

2010, a Charlotte-Mecklenburg police officer slammed Plaintiff into a car while Plaintiff was in
handcuffs, causing Plaintiff’s teeth to be chipped. Plaintiff also alleges that the officer used
racial slurs when referring to Plaintiff. Plaintiff named “Mattos Michealle” as the arresting
officer in his Complaint. In Plaintiff’s letter dated February 6, 2012, Plaintiff now states that the
arresting officer was not “Mattos Michealle,” and that he can only identify the arresting officer
by the badge number given on the arrest form. Plaintiff also states that he wants to add
Charlotte-Mecklenburg police officer Rodney D. Monroe (“Monroe”), the CharlotteMecklenburg Police Department (“CMPD”) and the City of Charlotte (“Charlotte”) as
Defendants.

The Court will allow Plaintiff to amend his Complaint to add John Doe, the unnamed
officer who arrested him. Further, the Court will order CMPD to provide Plaintiff and the Court
with the name of the arresting officer within 20 days of this Order. When the name of the
arresting officer has been provided to the Court, the Court will replace John Doe with the
arresting officer as a named Defendant in this matter.
While Plaintiff states that he would like to add Monroe, Charlotte and CMPD as
defendants, Plaintiff does not allege any facts against them. Therefore, the Court will deny
Plaintiff’s motion to amend his Complaint as to Monroe, Charlotte and CMPD .
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint, (Doc. No. 14), is GRANTED in
part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff shall be permitted to replace Mattos
Michealle with John Doe as the sole defendant in this action.

2.

Within 20 days of entry of this Order, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police
Department shall provide Plaintiff and the Court with the name of the officer who
arrested Plaintiff on October 25, 2010. When the name of the arresting officer is
provided, the Complaint will be amended to replace John Doe with the arresting
officer as a named Defendant in this action.

Signed: March 5, 2012

2