Nixon v. Doe et al
Filing
13
ORDER granting 9 Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint; denying 10 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; denying 11 Motion for Entry of Default; granting 12 Motion Inquiry re: Pro Se Complaint document# 1. The Clerk is directed to mail Plaintiff a new Section 1983 complaint form. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 2/12/16. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(mga)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:15-cv-370-FDW
CHASTIS NIXON,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
)
JOHN DOE, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on initial review of Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, (Doc. No. 1). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2); 1915A. Also before the
Court are the following motions filed by Plaintiff: (1) Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint,
(Doc. No. 9); (2) Motion to Appoint Counsel, (Doc. No. 10); (3) Motion for Entry of Default,
(Doc. No. 11); and (4) Motion for Letter of Inquiry, (Doc. No. 12). On September 30, 2015, the
Court entered an order waiving the initial filing fee and directing monthly payments to be made
from Plaintiff’s prison account. (Doc. No. 8). Thus, Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis.
I.
BACKGROUND
Pro se Plaintiff Chastis Nixon, a North Carolina state inmate currently incarcerated at
Alexander Correctional Institution in Taylorsville, North Carolina, filed this action on August
14, 2015, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In the Complaint, Plaintiff names as Defendants
“Superintendent of Salisbury Correctional Institution,” “Superintendent of Alexander
Correctional Institution,” “Gaston County Municipality,” “Gaston County Jail,” “Gaston County
Jail (not sure of officers names),” “Commissioner and/or policy maker of prisons N.C. D.P.S.,”
1
“Raleigh Prisoner Legal Service,” “Appropriate Alexander Staff,” and “Appropriate Salisbury
Staff.” (Doc. No. 1 at 1). Plaintiff states in the Complaint that “discovery will identify specific
persons—I’m currently being denied access to courts via no law library.” (Id.).
Plaintiff’s allegations are voluminous, vague, and rambling. He complains that, in the
various jails and prisons where he has been incarcerated, numerous unnamed individuals have
violated almost every one of his federal constitutional rights. For instance, he claims that he was
subjected to cruel and unusual punishment based on intolerable conditions of confinement,
including allegedly being unnecessarily strip-searched while at Salisbury Correctional
Institution. He also contends, among other things, that numerous unnamed persons have been
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs; he contends that his First Amendment right
to access to the courts and the right to exercise his religion were violated; and he contends that
his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights were violated in relation to disciplinary
proceedings brought against him at Alexander Correctional Institution, where he is currently
incarcerated.
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 “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
2
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).
III.
DISCUSSION
This court first addresses Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. In support of the motion,
Plaintiff states that he is incarcerated, has limited knowledge of the law, and has no access to a
law library, and that the issues involved in this case are complex. There is no absolute right to
the appointment of counsel in civil actions such as this one. Therefore, a plaintiff must present
“exceptional circumstances” in order to require the Court to seek the assistance of a private
attorney for a plaintiff who is unable to afford counsel. Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 966
(4th Cir. 1987). Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s contentions to the contrary, this case does not
present exceptional circumstances that justify appointment of counsel. Therefore, Plaintiff’s
motion to appoint counsel will be denied.
This Court finds on initial review that, because Plaintiff’s Complaint suffers from
numerous deficiencies, Plaintiff must amend his complaint or this action will be subject to
dismissal without prejudice and without further notice to Plaintiff. The Court first notes that the
complaint is inadequate in that Plaintiff’s allegations are simply too vague as to most of the
claims he purports to raise. The complaint is filled with vague allegations of rights being
violated without giving times, dates, or the persons who allegedly violated Plaintiff’s rights. For
instance, Plaintiff alleges vaguely that his right to access to the courts has been denied because
the jails and prisons where he has been incarcerated forced him to mail out some of his legal
materials rather than allowing him to keep them in his cell. Plaintiff alleges vaguely that when
he arrived at Salisbury Correctional Institution, he was “forced to send legal work home once
3
again—this caused damage [to] numerous cases I planned to file.” (Doc. No. 1 at 6).
Allegations that unnamed persons deprived Plaintiff of unspecified legal materials, thus
preventing him from filing unspecified legal claims that he might file sometime in the future is
not enough to state a First Amendment claim for denial of access to the courts. As another
example, Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint that “Muslims can order oils but Wiccans can’t this
violates my first amendment rights.” (Doc. No. 1 at 13). These allegations are simply not
enough to state a cognizable claim of a violation of his First Amendment right to exercise his
religion.
In an amended complaint, Plaintiff needs to provide specific allegations—that is, he
needs to allege facts with specific dates and persons, and conduct that allegedly violated his
constitutional rights.1 Additionally, Plaintiff’s amended complaint must be complete in and of
itself. This is because the amended complaint will supersede the original complaint, meaning the
original complaint will no longer have any force. In other words, Plaintiff may not amend the
complaint “piecemeal”—he simply cannot add on to what he has already alleged in the
complaint. To this extent, the Court will instruct the Clerk to mail Plaintiff a new Section 1983
form for Plaintiff to submit an amended complaint, if he so wishes.
Next, as for the individual Defendants, Plaintiff has simply named “John Doe”
Defendants in the complaint, and he claims that “discovery will identify specific persons—I’m
currently being denied access to courts via no law library.” (Doc. No. 1 at 1). Plaintiff is
entitled to limited discovery to determine the names of individual Defendants only if he can
The Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff’s plight in that the Court recognizes that pro se prisoners
often have limited access to legal materials and resources. However, this Court may not and will
not write Plaintiff’s Complaint for him.
1
4
show the Court that the discovery will likely reveal the names of the persons who allegedly
violated his rights. See (Chidi Njoku v. Unknown Special Unit Staff, 217 F.3d 840 (4th Cir.
2000) (“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.”). The Court will not allow Plaintiff to go on a fishing expedition. Based on the
plethora of vague allegations against unnamed persons, this is likely what will happen if the
Court allows Plaintiff to conduct discovery to determine the names of the individuals who
allegedly violated his rights. As to many of his alleged claims, Plaintiff does not give specific
dates or specific facts regarding the alleged constitutional violations. Without this information, it
is highly unlikely that Plaintiff will be able to identify through discovery the individual
defendants who allegedly violated his constitutional rights.
The Court further notes that, to the extent that Plaintiff has named various supervisors at
the prisons and jails where he has been incarcerated solely based on their supervisory positions,
these Defendants are subject to dismissal. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694
(1978) (stating that under § 1983, liability is personal in nature, and the doctrine of respondeat
superior does not apply). In his amended complaint, Plaintiff must allege how each individual
Defendant personally participated in the alleged violations of constitutional rights.
Next, to the extent that some of Plaintiff’s allegations in his complaint allege
constitutional violations in his underlying criminal proceedings, those claims are barred by the
principles announced in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (“[I]n order to recover
damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by
actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a section 1983
5
plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged
by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or
called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.”).
Finally, and most significantly, the Court notes that Plaintiff has alleged numerous,
unrelated claims against numerous, unrelated defendants in this action. Plaintiff is placed on
notice that he may not bring unrelated claims against unrelated parties in a single action. See
FED. R. CIV. P. 18(a), 20(a)(2); George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (noting that
“[u]nrelated claims against different defendants belong in different suits,” so as to prevent
prisoners from dodging the fee payment or three-strikes provisions in the Prison Litigation
Reform Act). Plaintiff may bring a claim against multiple defendants as long as (1) the claim
arises out of the same transaction or occurrence, or series of transactions and occurrences, and
(2) there are common questions of law or fact. FED. R. CIV. P. 20(a)(2). Here, Plaintiff’s
unrelated claims against different defendants may not be litigated in the same action. For
instance, Plaintiff’s First Amendment religious exercise claim against unnamed individuals is
wholly unrelated to his Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against other unnamed
individuals. Plaintiff’s amended complaint may bring his claims against different defendants
only as long as the claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence, or series of
transactions and occurrences, and there are common questions of law or fact. If Plaintiff wants
to pursue wholly distinct and separate claims, he must pursue them in separately filed actions.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days in which to amend his
complaint in accordance with this order.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
6
1. Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days in which to amend the complaint, particularizing
his claims and providing facts to support his legal claims and identifying individual
Defendants subject to suit. If Plaintiff fails to amend the complaint within the time
limit set by the Court, this action will be dismissed without prejudice and without
further notice to Plaintiff. Furthermore, to the extent that an amended complaint
purports to bring claims against multiple defendants that are wholly unrelated, the
amended complaint will be subject to dismissal without further notice to Plaintiff for
the reasons explained in this order.
2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint, (Doc. No. 9), is GRANTED to the
extent that Plaintiff may file an amended complaint in accordance with this order.
3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel, (Doc. No. 10), and Plaintiff’s Motion for
Entry of Default, (Doc. No. 11), are DENIED.
4. Plaintiff’s Motion for Letter of Inquiry, (Doc. No. 12), is GRANTED to the extent
that this Court has now conducted an initial review of the complaint.
5. The Clerk is directed to mail Plaintiff a new Section 1983 complaint form.
Signed: February 12, 2016
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?