Rutledge et al v. Wake Forest University School of Medicine et al

Filing 6

ORDER that the 1 Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii); Pltfs A.M.R. and A.D.R. are DISMISSED from this action; and Pltf shall have 30 days in which to amend his Complai nt in accordance with the terms of this Order. If Pltf fails to so amend his Complaint, the matter will be dismissed without further notice. (Amended Pleading: Complaint due by 5/29/2024.). Signed by Chief Judge Martin Reidinger on 4/29/2024. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail with a blank § 1983 complaint form and a copy of this Order as instructed.)(ejb) Pltfs A.M.R. and A.D.R. terminated as instructed.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 3:24-cv-00404-MR

CHRISTOPHER R. RUTLEDGE, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY
)
SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on initial review of the pro se
Complaint [Doc. 1]. The Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. [Doc. 5].
I.

BACKGROUND
The incarcerated Plaintiff filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), on behalf of himself and his two minor
children, A.M.R. and A.D.R.1 [Doc. 1 at 1, 31]. In the 64-page Complaint,
the Plaintiff purports to assert claims under the “1st, 4th, 5th, 8th & more plus
Human Rights Violations, International & here….” for, inter alia, denying him

1

The Plaintiff is instructed to refer to his minor children by using their initials rather than
their full names. The Plaintiff must also move to seal any future filing that contains
confidential information.

“Freedom of Speech & Religion & Political Views (… i.e. Nazi)…,” and for
controlling him with technology. [Id. at 2-3, 13, 31].
The Plaintiff names as Defendants “Approx 280 Company’s, Labs,
Colleges, Individuals/Relatives to me & my Daughter’s, Municipalities,
Entity’s, Etc…,” including: federal agencies; local sheriff’s departments,
police departments, and fire departments; private individuals including
Plaintiff’s family members; private companies; and groups including “People
from Charlotte or Surrounding,” “Spanish People” and “LGBTQ people.” [Id.
at 30, 41-63] (errors uncorrected).
The Plaintiff describes the events giving rise to his claims as follows:
I want the CIA & FBI & NSA to do an in person memory
download, reading & polygraph in a location no technology can
access me & after they research this package to make sure no
technology can cut on to me or my brain. I want this recorded
because it will be completely opposite of everything they’ve
gotten until it’s finally done.
[Id. at 32] (errors uncorrected). The Plaintiff appears to seek damages and
injunctive relief including an investigation of the Defendants and the
institution of criminal charges against them.2 [Id. at 2, 40]. In an attachment

2

The Plaintiff seeks relief which is beyond the purview of this civil rights action. See, e.g.,
Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973) (“in American jurisprudence …, a
private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution
of another.”); DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 196
(1989) (“The Due Process Clauses generally confer no affirmative right to governmental
aid, even where such aid may be necessary to secure life, liberty, or property interests of
which the government itself may not deprive the individual.”)).
2

to the Complaint, he also requests the appointment of counsel.3 [Doc. 1-1
at 10].
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Because the 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, under § 1915A
the Court must conduct an initial review and identify and dismiss the
complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if it 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 to such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
In its frivolity review, this Court must determine whether a 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). 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

In future, the Plaintiff must address any requests to the Court by filing a “Motion.” [See
April 23, 2024 Standing Order]. Letters and other improper filings will not receive a
response from the Court and may be stricken.
3

3

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
To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that he was

deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States,
and that the alleged deprivation was committed by a “person” acting under
color of state law. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan,
526 U.S. 40, 49-50 (1999); Health & Hosp. Corp. of Marion Cnty. v. Talevski,
599 U.S. 166 (2023).
A Bivens action is the judicially-created counterpart to 42 U.S.C. §
1983, and allows an action for money damages to be brought against
individuals acting under the color of federal law for injuries caused by their
unconstitutional conduct. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal
Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 395-97 (1971). Bivens’ core premise is
to deter individual officers’ unconstitutional acts. See Correctional Servs.
Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (2001).
Acting pro se, the Plaintiff is not qualified to prosecute a class action
or assert a claim on behalf of others. See Myers v. Loudoun Cnty. Pub.
Schls., 418 F.3d 395, 400 (4th Cir. 2005) (“An individual unquestionably has
4

the right to litigate his own claims in federal court.... The right to litigate for
oneself, however, does not create a coordinate right to litigate for others”);
Hummer v. Dalton, 657 F.2d 621, 625 (4th Cir. 1981) (prisoner’s suit is
“confined to redress for violations of his own personal rights and not one by
him as knight-errant for all prisoners”); Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405,
1407 (4th Cir. 1975) (“[I]t is plain error to permit a … litigant who is unassisted
by counsel to represent [others] in a class action.”). Therefore, the Plaintiff’s
attempt to assert claims on behalf of his minor children is rejected and they
will be dismissed as Plaintiffs from this action.
The Plaintiff’s allegations are vague, conclusory, and devoid of
meaningful factual allegations. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (requiring a “short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”);
Simpson v. Welch, 900 F.2d 33, 35 (4th Cir. 1990) (conclusory allegations,
unsupported by specific allegations of material fact are not sufficient);
Dickson v. Microsoft Corp., 309 F.3d 193, 201-02 (4th Cir. 2002) (a pleader
must allege facts, directly or indirectly, that support each element of the
claim). The allegations are also so outlandish and unmoored from reality that
the Court is unable to discern any potentially plausible claim under § 1983
or Bivens. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S.
25, 33 (1992) (“a finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts
5

alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible....”); McLean
v. United States, 566 F.3d 391, 399 (4th Cir. 2009) (“Examples of frivolous
claims include those whose factual allegations are ‘so nutty,’ ‘delusional,’ or
‘wholly fanciful’ as to be simply ‘unbelievable.’”), abrogated on other grounds
by Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, 140 S. Ct. 1721 (2020).

Accordingly, the

Complaint fails initial review as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.4
The Plaintiff seeks the appointment of counsel because he is indigent
and a layperson, and because the Court has not provided him with adequate
counsel. [Doc. 1-1 at 10]. 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). The Plaintiff has failed
to demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances that would
warrant the appointment of counsel and, therefore, his request will be denied.

The Court declines to address § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) at this time in light of the Complaint’s
other serious deficiencies and the large number of Defendants.
4

6

IV.

CONCLUSION
In sum, the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim and the Complaint is

dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii).
The Court will allow Plaintiff thirty (30) days to amend his Complaint, if
he so chooses, to properly state a claim upon which relief can be granted, in
accordance with the terms of this Order. Any amended complaint will be
subject to all timeliness and procedural requirements and will supersede the
Complaint. The Amended Complaint, including attachments, must not
exceed 25 pages unless the Plaintiff obtains prior authorization from
the Court. Piecemeal amendment will not be permitted. Should Plaintiff fail
to timely amend his Complaint in accordance with this Order, the Court will
dismiss this action without further notice.
The Plaintiff is cautioned that any further frivolous filings may
result in the imposition of sanctions including a prefiling injunction.

ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. The Complaint [Doc. 1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii).
7

2. Plaintiffs A.M.R. and A.D.R. are DISMISSED from this action.
3. The Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days in which to amend his
Complaint in accordance with the terms of this Order. If Plaintiff
fails to so amend his Complaint, the matter will be dismissed
without further notice.
The Clerk is respectfully instructed to mail the Plaintiff a blank § 1983
complaint form and a copy of this Order, and to terminate A.M.R. and A.D.R.
as Plaintiffs from this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: April 29, 2024

8