Gorham El v. Honeycutt et al

Filing 20

ORDER that: Pltf's 11 , 13 , 16 MOTIONS to Amend the Complaint are DISMISSED AND DENIED; Pltf shall have 30 days in which to amend his 1 Complaint in accordance with the terms of this Order, (Amended Pleading due by 3/6/2024); Pltf's 14 MOTION to Correct is GRANTED and the Clerk is instructed to substitute "Ronald L. Honeycutt" with Ronnie L. Honeycutt in the Court's record; Pltf's 15 "RE: Request of Jury Trial" is constru ed as a Motion and is GRANTED, and the Clerk is instructed to note Pltf's jury demand on the Court's docket; Pltf's 17 "Preliminary Injunction" is construed as a MOTION and is DENIED; and the Clerk is respectfully requested to mail Pltf a blank prisoner complaint form and a copy of this Order at his address of record as well as to him at the Scotland Correctional Institution. Signed by Chief Judge Martin Reidinger on 2/5/2024. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.) (ejb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 5:23-cv-00154-MR

BRUCE L. GORHAM EL,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
ROBERT L. HONEYCUTT, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s pro se Motions to
Amend the Complaint [Docs. 11, 13, 16], Motion to Correct Defendant
Honeycutt’s name [Doc. 14], “RE: Request of Jury Trial….” that was
docketed as a Motion [Doc. 15]; and “Preliminary Injunction” that was
docketed as a Motion [Doc. 17].1
The pro se incarcerated Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 addressing his placement in the restrictive housing unit (RHU) at the

The Plaintiff is reminded that he must request relief from the Court by filing a “Motion.”
[See Doc. 3 (Order of Instructions)]. Any future requests that are not properly filed will not
receive a response from the Court and may be stricken.
1

Alexander Correctional Institution during the summer of 2023.2 [Doc. 1]. He
subsequently filed three Motions to Amend in which he seeks to add
defendants and claims under § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). [Docs. 11, 13, 16]. The Plaintiff asks
the Court to disregard one of the Motions to Amend [Doc.11] because he
filed it “in error.” [See Doc. 16 at 1, 7].
A plaintiff may amend the complaint once as a matter of course within
21 days after serving the complaint, or within 21 days after service of a
responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b),
(e), or (f), which is earlier. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). A plaintiff may
subsequently amend with permission from the court which “shall be freely
granted when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
The Plaintiff’s initial Motion to Amend is moot because he may amend
once as a matter of course. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). However, he
withdrew the initial Motion and filed two more such Motions, which are
duplicative and confusing attempts to amend the Complaint in a piecemeal

The Plaintiff’s address of record is now at the Tabor Correctional Institution. However,
a review of the NCDAC website reveals that the Plaintiff was recently transferred to the
Scotland CI. See https://webapps.doc.state.nc.us/opi/viewoffender.do?method=view&
offenderID=0462072&searchOffenderId=0462072&searchDOBRange=0&listurl=pagelist
offendersearchresults&listpage=1 (last addressed Jan. 30, 2024); Fed. R. Evid. 201. The
Plaintiff is reminded that it is his responsibility to keep the Court apprised of his current
address at all times. [See Doc. 4 (Order of Instructions)].
2

2

fashion. This will not be permitted. The Plaintiff may file a superseding
Amended Complaint on a § 1983 form that clearly identifies the Defendants
against whom he intends to proceed, and sets forth facts describing how
each of the Defendants allegedly violated his rights. See generally Fed. R.
Civ. P. 10(a). Any Amended Complaint will be subject to all timeliness and
procedural requirements and will supersede the Plaintiff’s prior filings. If the
Plaintiff fails to timely amend in accordance with this Order, the Court will
proceed on the Complaint. [Doc. 1].
In his Motion to Correct, the Plaintiff asks to change Defendant
Honeycutt’s first name from “Ronald” to Ronnie. [Doc. 14]. This is granted
and the Clerk will be instructed to correct Defendant Honeycutt’s name in the
Court’s record.
It also appears that the Plaintiff is attempting to request a jury trial.
[Doc. 15]. This request is granted and the Clerk will be instructed to note the
Plaintiff’s jury demand on the docket sheet.
Finally, the Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction instructing
Defendant Honeycutt to release the Plaintiff’s legal document and religious
materials to him, and to transfer him to Maury or Pasquotank Correctional
Institution. [Doc. 17 at 3]. He claims that this relief is required “in order to
cease future irreparable injury from occurring.” [Id.].
3

Preliminary injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy afforded before
trial at the discretion of the district court. In re Microsoft Corp. Antitrust Litig.,
333 F.3d 517, 524-26 (4th Cir. 2003). It is an extraordinary remedy never
awarded as of right. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7,
24 (2008). In each case, courts “must balance the competing claims of injury
and must consider the effect on each party of the granting or withholding of
the requested relief.” Amoco Prod. Co. v. Village of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531,
542 (1987). To obtain a preliminary injunction, the plaintiff must establish (1)
that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) that he is likely to suffer
irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of
equities tips in his favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest.
Winter, 555 U.S. at 20.
The Plaintiff has not established any of the elements that would
warrant preliminary injunctive relief. Moreover, It appears that the Plaintiff’s
requests for injunctive relief are moot insofar as he has now been transferred
away from the Alexander CI and the conditions of which he complains are
unlikely to recur. See Incumaa v. Ozmint, 507 F.3d 281, 286-87 (4th Cir.
2007) (“the transfer of an inmate from a unit or location where he is subject
to [a] challenged policy, practice, or condition, to a different unit or location
where he is no longer subject to the challenged policy, practice, or condition
4

moots his claims for injunctive and declaratory relief.”). Accordingly, his
request for preliminary injunctive relief is denied.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. The Plaintiff’s Motions to Amend the Complaint [Docs. 11, 13,
16] are DISMISSED AND DENIED.
2. 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 amend the Complaint in the instant case in accordance
with this Order and within the time limit set by the Court, this
action will proceed on the Complaint [Doc. 1].
3. The Plaintiff’s Motion to Correct [Doc. 14] is GRANTED and the
Clerk is instructed to substitute “Ronald L. Honeycutt” with
Ronnie L. Honeycutt in the Court’s record.
4. The Plaintiff’s “RE: Request of Jury Trial…” [Doc. 15] is
construed as a Motion and is GRANTED. The Clerk is instructed
to note the Plaintiff’s jury demand on the Court’s docket.
5. The Plaintiff’s “Preliminary Injunction” [Doc. 17] is construed as
a Motion and is DENIED.

5

The Clerk is respectfully requested to mail the Plaintiff a blank prisoner
complaint form and a copy of this Order at his address of record as well as
to him at the Scotland Correctional Institution.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: February 5, 2024

6