Jeremy Lamond Henderson Trust v. Haynes

Filing 3

ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Frank D. Whitney on 2/5/24. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(clc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:23-cv-730-FDW

JEREMY LAMOND HENDERSON TRUST,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
BRAD HAYNES,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_________________________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on initial review of the pro se Complaint. [Doc. 1].
The Plaintiff has paid the filing fee.
I.

BACKGROUND
The pro se Plaintiff, as “Jeremy Lamond Henderson Trust ©,”purports to file this action

under the Court’s federal question jurisdiction for relief pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242
[Doc. 1 at 1, 6]. He names as the sole Defendant Brad Haynes of the “North Carolina Division of
Motor Vehicles Police.” [Id. at 2]. He states his claim as follows:
On August 9, 2019, MR. BRAD HAYNES of THE STATE OF NORTH
CAROLINA DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES LICENSE AND THEFT
BUREAU filed a WARRANT FOR ARREST for JEREMY LAMOND
HENDERSON© due to an alleged address dispute in regards to North Carolina
Drivers License Number: 000044980447. MR. BRAD HAYNES alleges that he
was unable to find an accurate address on file for JEREMY LAMOND
HENDERSON© despite the fact that JEREMY LAMOND HENDERSON
TRUST© ensured the NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES
had a home and mailing address on file for this account. MR. BRAD HAYNES did
not attempt to contact JEREMY LAMOND HENDERSON© to resolve the alleged
discrepancy. JEREMY LAMOND HENDERSON© would have gladly ensured the
discrepancy was resolved in a timely manner. Instead, MR. BRAD HAYNES
conducted an independent investigation without the knowledge of JEREMY
LAMOND HENDERSON© in regards to the alleged address discrepancy and filed
a WARRANT FOR ARREST for JEREMY LAMOND HENDERSON© at the

conclusion of his investigation. MR. BRAD HAYNES’ investigation concludes
that JEREMY LAMOND HENDERSON© obtained THE STATE OF NORTH
CAROLINA DRIVER LICENSE# 00004490844 by fraud despite the fact that
JEREMY LAMOND HENDERSON© successfully passed the written exam
required by THE NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES to
obtain one. JEREMY LAMOND HENDERSON TRUST© suffered a tremendous
loss of wages, false arrest, public humiliation, and emotional distress as a result of
the malfeasance and false allegations from MR. BRAD HAYNES. The charge was
dismissed out of court for a lack of evidence. JEREMY LAMOND
HENDERSON© was in the process of relocating to Cabarrus County, North
Carolina at the time of the alleged offense, but still ensured that the NORTH
CAROLINA DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES had the necessary address
needed to stay in honor with THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
OF MOTOR VEHICLES Driver License Contract.
[Doc. 1 at 5].
The Plaintiff appears to claim that his business, North Carolina Protective Service, Inc.,
went out of business for four years as a result of the Defendant’s actions. For relief, he seeks
$4,000,000.00 in lost wages. [Id.].
Before the Plaintiff initiated the instant action, he filed another § 1983 action in this Court,
Civil Case No. 3:23-cv-583-FDW, in which he names the same Defendant, asserts the same claims,
and seeks damages for lost wages.
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Plaintiff is not a prisoner, and he has paid the full filing fee. “However, frivolous

complaints are subject to dismissal pursuant to the inherent authority of the court, even when the
filing fee has been paid.” Ross v. Baron, 493 F. App’x 405, 406 (4th Cir. 2012). This case is,
therefore, subject to frivolity review under the Court’s inherent authority. See Patrick v. Boyd, No.
7:22-CV-185-D, 2023 WL 8813590, at *2 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 27, 2023), report and recommendation
adopted, No. 7:22-CV-185-D, 2023 WL 8810763 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 20, 2023)
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
2

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
This action is so overlapping and duplicative of Civil Case No. 3:23-cv-583-FDW that the

Court cannot allow the two actions to proceed simultaneously. Because the Plaintiff filed the
proceedings in the other case first, the Court will dismiss the instant action without prejudice.
Plaintiff is directed to carefully review the Order of Instructions [entered Nov. 15,
2023] before filing any further documents with the Court. He is further cautioned that the
repeated filing of frivolous or duplicative actions may result in the imposition of sanctions
and/or a prefiling injunction that would limit the Plaintiff’s ability to file further lawsuits in
this Court.
IV.

CONCLUSION
In sum, this action is duplicative of Civil Case No. 3:23-cv-583-FDW and, as such, the

Court will exercise its inherent authority to dismiss this action without prejudice.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: February 5, 2024

3