Warrington v. King et al

Filing 7

ORDER re 1 Complaint, 2 MOTION to Proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff shall, within twenty (20) days of entry of this Order, submit proof of her income and expenses, or lack thereof, within the past twelve (12) months. Plaintiff shall also show cause why the Complaint should not be dismissed. Signed by District Judge Frank D. Whitney on 10/29/2012. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(eef)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:12-cv-671-FDW
CHANTEL E. WARRINGTON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CHRIS KING, Police Officer, Cornelius
)
Police Department, JOHN DOE, Police
)
Officer, Cornelius Police Department,
)
JANE DOE, Police Officer, Cornelius
)
Police Department,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis,
(Doc. No. 2).
On October 10, 2012, Plaintiff filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s action
arises from a traffic stop on September 7, 2012, in which Defendant King, a police officer with
the Cornelius Police Department in Mecklenburg County, initiated a traffic stop while Plaintiff
was driving her 2006 Mercedes Benz. (Doc. No. 1 at ¶¶ 24-29). Plaintiff alleges that she “does
not have a contractual agreement known as a Drivers License with the Corporation [the State of
North Carolina].1 (Id. at ¶ 20). Plaintiff told the police officers that she “was not operating in

1

The Complaint includes language used by individuals claiming to be sovereign
citizens. These individuals claim that they are not subject to the laws of the United States or of
the individual States. Ironically, these individuals attempt to invoke the protections of the U.S.
Constitution and federal statutes, while at the same time contending that they are not subject to
these very laws. See El-Bey v. City of Greensboro, No. 1:10cv572, 2011 WL 4499168, at *1 n.2
(M.D.N.C. Sept. 27, 2011). No court has ever found merit in the claims by these individuals that
they are somehow not subject to the laws of the United States or of the individual States by
virtue of their claims of “sovereign citizenship.” See El-Bey, 2011 WL 4499168, at *1 n.1 (“By
-1-

commerce and asked if she was being detained for any reason.” (Id. at ¶ 31). Defendant King
told Plaintiff he pulled her over because she was driving without a license tag. (Id. at ¶ 32).
Plaintiff showed Defendant her passport and soon after that defendant officers Jane Doe and
John Doe arrived.
According to Plaintiff, Defendant King then shouted at Plaintiff to get out of her car.
Plaintiff told Defendant King that she was very afraid wanted to end the “encounter.” (Id. at ¶
44). At that point, Defendant King opened the car door, grabbed Plaintiff’s arm, and pulled her
out of the car. Plaintiff yelled for help, stating that she was being kidnapped. (Id. at ¶ 47).
Officer King and Jane Doe then held Plaintiff down, threw her on the top of the car hood,
handcuffed her, “illegally” searched Plaintiff’s car, arrested Plaintiff, and took Plaintiff to the
sheriff’s office for processing. (Id. at ¶¶ 48-49, 59). Plaintiff alleges that she was “falsely
arrested and never mirandized,” and that the officers ordered Plaintiff’s dog “to be impounded.”
(Id. at ¶ 58).
Based on the above allegations, Plaintiff has brought a plethora of constitutional claims
against the defendant police officers including, among other things, a claim for excessive force.
Plaintiff submitted an application for in forma pauperis along with the Complaint. In the
application, Plaintiff has asserted, under penalty of perjury, that she has no income; no expenses,
including no expenses for food or transportation; no bank accounts; no assets, including no
motor vehicles; and no dependents.
Given Plaintiff’s allegations in her Complaint, the Court finds that at least two assertion

now, the path of these litigants is well-traveled; and courts have repeatedly rejected their claims
as frivolous.”). If not for Plaintiff’s excessive force claim, which could possibly survive a Rule
12(b)(6) dismissal, this action would be subject to sua sponte dismissal as frivolous if Plaintiff
were to obtain in forma pauperis status. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
-2-

made by Plaintiff are simply false. That is, Plaintiff alleges in her Complaint that she was
stopped by police officers while she was driving her 2006 Mercedes Benz. (Doc. No. 1 at ¶¶ 15,
16). In her application, however, she attests that she owns no assets, including no motor
vehicles. The Court finds that this statement is false. The Court further notes that Plaintiff has
declared that she has no expenses whatsoever, including expenses for food or transportation.
These assertions are also false. First, as noted, Plaintiff alleged in the Complaint that she owns a
Mercedes Benz. Of course, Plaintiff must spend money on gasoline in order to drive her motor
vehicle. Next, common sense dictates that Plaintiff has at least some expenses for food. That is,
Plaintiff needs to eat to survive, and food costs money. Plaintiff has stated under penalty of
perjury, however, that she spends nothing on food. The Court finds that this statement is false.
Federal courts may allow a litigant to prosecute a civil action without paying the usual
required fees if the individual submits an affidavit containing a statement of his or her assets and
demonstrating that he or she cannot afford to pay the required fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The
IFP statute is intended to ensure that indigent persons have equal access to the judicial system by
allowing them to proceed without having to advance the fees and costs associated with litigation.
Flint v. Haynes, 651 F.2d 970, 972 (4th Cir. 1981). An impoverished plaintiff does not have to
prove that he or she is “absolutely destitute to enjoy the benefit of the statute.” Adkins v. E.I. Du
Pont de Nemours & Co., 335 U .S. 331, 339 (1948). Rather, an affidavit to proceed IFP is
sufficient if it states that one cannot, because of his or her poverty, afford to pay for costs of
litigation and still provide for the necessities of life. Id.
However, if a court determines at any time that the allegation of poverty made in an IFP
application is “untrue,” then the court “shall dismiss the case.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A)
(emphasis added). Thus, under the plain language of the statute, dismissal is mandatory if the
-3-

court concludes that an applicant’s allegation of poverty is untrue. See Justice v. Granville Cnty.
Bd. of Educ., Nos. 5:10-cv-539B-R, 5:11-cv-99-BR, 5:11-cv-400-BR, 5:11-cv-706-BR, 2012
WL 1801949 (E.D.N.C. May 17, 2012); Staten v. Tekelec, Nos. 5:09-cv-434-FL, 5:10-CV-180FL, 2011 WL 2358221, at *1 (E.D.N.C. June 9, 2011); Berry v. Locke, No. 1:08cv697 (JCC),
2009 WL 1587315, at *5 (E.D. Va. June 5, 2009), appeal dismissed, 357 F. App’x 513 (4th Cir.
2009) (unpublished). The Court notes further that the paragraph above the signature line on
Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application states, in pertinent part: “I declare under penalty of
perjury that the information below is true and understand that a false statement may result in a
dismissal of my claims.” (Doc. No. 2 at 1).
Given that Plaintiff has made false statements in her application in forma pauperis
application, the Complaint is subject to dismissal. Before dismissing the Complaint, the Court
will grant twenty days for Plaintiff to provide proof of her income and expenses, or lack thereof.
As proof, Plaintiff shall file in this Court any W2 wage statements, social security benefit
statements, her federal tax returns for 2011, her bankruptcy documents, and any other relevant
documents. As to her expenses, or lack thereof, Plaintiff shall provide to this Court documents
verifying any expenses, or lack thereof.
Finally, the Court hereby warns Plaintiff that, in addition to facing dismissal of her
Complaint for making false statements to this Court, she also could potentially face criminal
charges for perjuring herself before this Court. Given the statements that Plaintiff has made to
this Court under penalty of perjury, the Court will not hesitate to use all appropriate remedies in
order to deter Plaintiff from making false assertions to the Court.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff shall, within twenty (20) days of entry of
this Order, submit proof of her income and expenses, or lack thereof, within the past twelve (12)
-4-

months. Plaintiff shall, furthermore, show cause to this Court why the Complaint should not be
dismissed based on Plaintiff’s false assertions in her IFP application. The Court warns Plaintiff
in advance that any assertions that she is not subject to the laws of the United States or of the
individual States will not suffice as cause for failure to be truthful in her IFP application.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: October 29, 2012

-5-