LaKemper v. Honeycutt et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
5:22-cv-000189-MR
COBEY LAKEMPER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) ORDER
)
FNU HONEYCUTT, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
________________________________ )
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to
File Rule 15(d) Supplemental Pleading. [Doc. 27].
Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on December 15,
2022, against Defendants Biecker, Chester, Farrish, Huneycutt, and Young,
and Defendant John Doe, who has since been identified as Christina Mingo
Fox, asserting, in part, First Amendment censorship and retaliation claims.
[Doc. 1, 6/22/2023 Text Order]. On February 9, 2023, Plaintiff’s Complaint
passed initial review in accordance with the Court’s Order. [Doc. 10].
Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, which passed initial review on April 18,
2023, in accordance with the Court’s Order. [Docs. 17, 19]. All Defendants
have answered Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. [Docs. 21, 29].
Case 5:22-cv-00189-MR Document 30 Filed 11/06/23 Page 1 of 4

2
Plaintiff now moves to supplement his Amended Complaint and to
name another Defendant in this matter. [Doc. 27]. In his supplemental
pleading, Plaintiff alleges that, on August 24 and 25, 2023, Defendant
Biecker and Assistant Unit Manager Scottie Scully improperly censored two
electronic messages sent by Plaintiff to his established contact, A.
Rodriguez, “for the sole purpose of suppressing permissible speech, bullying
Plaintiff, to be retaliatory, and not to advance any valid penological interest.”
[Doc. 28 at 1-2]. Plaintiff alleges that the electronic messages did not contain
impermissible speech and that he was not disciplined as a result of
attempting to send the messages.1 [Id. at 2]. Plaintiff claims this conduct
constituted unconstitutional retaliation and censorship in violation of the First
Amendment. [Id. at 3]. Plaintiff purports to assert claims based on this
conduct against Defendant Biecker and Assistant Unit Manager Scully in
their individual and official capacities. [Id.].
Under Rule 15(d), a party may on motion “serve a supplemental
pleading setting out any transaction, occurrence, or event that happened
after the date of the pleading to be supplemented.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d). “A
1 Plaintiff attached a handwritten duplication of the subject messages to his Complaint.
[See Doc. 28 at 6]. The August 24 electronic message referred to Defendants Young and
Chester as “corrupt” and “fascist bastards.” [Id.]. The August 25 electronic message
again referred to these Defendants as “corrupt.” [Id.].
Case 5:22-cv-00189-MR Document 30 Filed 11/06/23 Page 2 of 4

3
plaintiff may add new defendants via a supplemental pleading, but only if the
supplemental pleading relies ‘in good part on transactions, occurrences, and
events which had happened since the action had begun.’” Rush v. American
Home Mortg., Inc., No. WMN-07-854, 209 WL 2591342, at *2 (D. Md. Aug.
19, 2009) (quoting Griffin v. County School Bd. of Prince Edward County,
377 U.S. 218, 226, 84 S.Ct. 1226 (1964)). Here, Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant Biecker and Assistant Unit Manager Scully improperly censored
two outgoing electronic messages in August 2023 and asks to add Scully as
a Defendant in this matter. Plaintiff also claims his “First Amendment right
to be free from retaliation for engaging in protected conduct” was violated.
[Doc. 28 at 3 (emphasis in original)]. Plaintiff, however, does not allege that
there was a causal relationship between any protected activity and the
Defendants’ conduct. See id.; see Martin v. Duffy, 977 F.3d 294, 299 (4th
Cir. 2020).
The Court will allow Plaintiff to supplement his Amended Complaint
with these additional allegations and to add Defendant Scully as a Defendant
in this matter, but only in his individual capacity and only as to Plaintiff’s
censorship claim. Plaintiff has failed to state a retaliation claim against
Defendant Scully and has not stated an official capacity claim against either
Defendant. See Doc. 10 at 6-8. The Court will direct the Clerk to initiate the
Case 5:22-cv-00189-MR Document 30 Filed 11/06/23 Page 3 of 4

4
process for service on Defendant Scully and order Defendant Biecker to
respond to Plaintiff’s supplemental pleading.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion [Doc. 27] is
GRANTED in accordance with the terms of this Order and Plaintiff’s First
Amendment censorship claim against Defendant Scully in his individual
capacity passes initial review. Plaintiff’s official capacity claims and First
Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Scully are DISMISSED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Biecker shall RESPOND
to the allegations in Plaintiff’s supplemental pleading [Doc. 28] within 21 days
of this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall commence
the procedure for waiver of service as set forth in Local Civil Rule 4.3 for
Defendant Scottie Scully, who is alleged to be a current or former employee
of the North Carolina Department of Adult Corrections.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: November 6, 2023
Case 5:22-cv-00189-MR Document 30 Filed 11/06/23 Page 4 of 4