Rollins v. State of North Carolina Highway Patrol Officers

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:24-cv-00018-MR
ADAM ROY ROLLINS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
) ORDER
)
JOHN DOE 1, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
___________________________ )
THIS MATTER is before the Court on initial review of Plaintiff’s
Complaint, filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and
1915A. [Doc. 23]. Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. [Docs. 8, 19].
I. BACKGROUND
Pro se Plaintiff Adam Roy Rollins (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner of the State
of South Carolina currently incarcerated at Perry Correctional Institution in
Pelzer, South Carolina. [Doc. 31]. Plaintiff filed this action on July 28, 2023,
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in the United States District Court for the
District of South Carolina, naming “State of North Carolina Highway Patrol
Officers” as Defendants. [See Doc. 1 at 2]. On November 16, 2023, Plaintiff
filed an Amended Complaint naming John Doe #1 and John Doe #2, both
identified as N.C. Highway Patrolmen, as Defendants, in their individual and
Case 1:24-cv-00018-MR-DCK Document 39 Filed 01/29/24 Page 1 of 7

2
official capacities.1 [Doc. 23 at 2-3]. On January 19, 2024, District Judge
Timothy Cain adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
finding that this matter should be transferred here pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1406(a). [Doc. 33]. The case was transferred here [Doc. 36] and is now
before the Court on initial review.
In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges as follows. On September
7, 2020, at approximately 11:30 p.m., Plaintiff was joyriding his motorcycle
in Henderson County, North Carolina. [Doc. 23 at 5]. As Plaintiff was coming
around a curve, Defendant John Doe #2 “barricaded” him, causing Plaintiff
to wreck “and getting injured to the point of almost losing [his] life.” [Doc. 23-
2 at 1]. As Plaintiff was lying on the ground bleeding “profoundly,” Defendant
John Doe #2 pulled his police vehicle “onto [Plaintiff’s] body pinning [him] to
the ground breaking ribs and collapsing [Plaintiff’s] left lung.” [Id.]. Although
Plaintiff’s medical records from Mission Hospital state that he “wrecked
during a High Speed Pursuit,” Plaintiff was not aware of being pursued by
police, never looked behind him, and never heard sirens or saw any blue
lights. [Id. at 2]. Plaintiff never received any citations or criminal charges
related to the incident. [Id.].
1 Plaintiff states that he does not currently know the true identities of the Doe Defendants,
and that he will substitute their true names after learning them through discovery. [Doc.
23-1].
Case 1:24-cv-00018-MR-DCK Document 39 Filed 01/29/24 Page 2 of 7

3
Plaintiff claims violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment
based on Defendants’ alleged excessive force and deliberate indifference.
[Id. at 4]. For injuries, Plaintiff alleges suffering various physical injuries,
“emotional damage,” and pain and suffering. [Id. at 6]. Plaintiff seeks
monetary relief only. [Id.].
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, 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.
In its 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). 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
Case 1:24-cv-00018-MR-DCK Document 39 Filed 01/29/24 Page 3 of 7

4
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, 143 S.Ct. 1444 (2023).
“The Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable seizures
includes the right to be free of ‘seizures effectuated by excessive force.’”
Henry v. Purnell, 652 F.3d 524, 531 (4th Cir. 2011) (quoting Schultz v. Braga,
455 F.3d 470, 476 (4th Cir. 2006)). In this regard, the inquiry is whether a
reasonable officer would have determined that the degree of force used was
justified by the threat presented, an objective inquiry “requir[ing] careful
attention to the facts and circumstances in each particular case,” including
“‘the severity of the crime at issue,’ whether the ‘suspect poses an immediate
threat to the safety of the officers or other,’ and whether the suspect ‘is
actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.’” Jones v.
Case 1:24-cv-00018-MR-DCK Document 39 Filed 01/29/24 Page 4 of 7

5
Buchanan, 325 F.3d 520, 527 (4th Cir. 2003) (quoting Graham v. Connor,
490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989)).
Here, taking Plaintiff’s allegations as true and giving Plaintiff the benefit
of every reasonable inference, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Fourth
Amendment claim against Defendants in their individual capacities based on
their alleged use of excessive force in stopping and (presumably) arresting
Plaintiff is not clearly frivolous and survives initial review.
The Court, however, will dismiss Plaintiff’s official capacity claims.
Plaintiff purports to sue Defendants, who are state officials, in their individual
and official capacities. However, “a suit against a state official in his or her
official capacity is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the
official’s office.” Will v. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989).
Because a state is not a “person” under § 1983, state officials acting in their
official capacities cannot be sued for damages thereunder. Allen v. Cooper,
No. 1:19-cv-794, 2019 WL 6255220, at *2 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 22, 2019).
Furthermore, the Eleventh Amendment bars suits for monetary damages
against the State of North Carolina and its various agencies. See Ballenger
v. Owens, 352 F.3d 842, 844-45 (4th Cir. 2003). As such, Plaintiff’s claims
against Defendants in their official capacities do not survive initial review and
will be dismissed.
Case 1:24-cv-00018-MR-DCK Document 39 Filed 01/29/24 Page 5 of 7

6
IV. CONCLUSION
In sum, the Complaint survives initial review under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A
and 1915(e) in accordance with the terms of this Order.
Before the Court can facilitate service on the Defendants, Plaintiff must
identify John Doe #1 and John Doe #2 and Plaintiff must provide completed
summonses for these Defendants. In this regard, Plaintiff may conduct pre-
service discovery to identify these Defendants. Should Plaintiff be unable to
identify the Defendants by name, he must submit on the summonses any
and all information he knows that may assist in their identification and
subsequent service on them.
Before Plaintiff begins pre-service discovery, he is strongly cautioned
to carefully review the Standing Order of Instructions in this case, the Local
Rules of this Court, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Given the
improper letters Plaintiff has filed in this matter already [Docs. 17, 30],
Plaintiff is also admonished that are further such letters will be stricken from
the record in this matter.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment
excessive force claim against John Doe #1 and John Doe #2 in their
individual capacities passes initial review. All remaining claims are
Case 1:24-cv-00018-MR-DCK Document 39 Filed 01/29/24 Page 6 of 7

7
DISMISSED for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim for relief. 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e) and 1915A.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall identify Defendants
John Doe #1 and John Doe #2 in accordance with the terms of this Order.
The Clerk is instructed to mail two (2) blank summonses to Plaintiff to
fill out and identify the Defendants, and then return the summonses to the
Court. Plaintiff is required to provide the necessary information for the U.S.
Marshal to timely effectuate service on the Defendants. When the Court
receives the summonses from Plaintiff, the Clerk shall direct the U.S.
Marshal to effectuate service upon the Defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: January 29, 2024
Case 1:24-cv-00018-MR-DCK Document 39 Filed 01/29/24 Page 7 of 7