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
)
RONNIE LANE HUNEYCUTT, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
________________________________ )
THIS MATTER is before the Court on initial review of Plaintiff’s Second
Amended Complaint, [Doc. 47], filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e) and 1915A.
Pro se Plaintiff Cobey LaKemper (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner of the State
of North Carolina currently incarcerated at Alexander Correctional Institution
(“Alexander”) in Taylorsville, North Carolina. On December 15, 2022,
Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the following
Defendants, in their individual and official capacities: (1) Ronnie Lane
Huneycutt, Warden of Alexander; (2) FNU Young, Mailroom Attendant at
Alexander; (3) Russell Chester, “FIO” Captain at Alexander; (4) Chris M.
Biecker, Unit Manager, Green Unit, at Alexander; (5) William N. Farrish,
Case 5:22-cv-00189-MR Document 48 Filed 04/08/24 Page 1 of 5

2
Assistant Unit Manager, Green Unit, at Alexander; and (6) John Doe,1 North
Carolina Department of Public Safety (NCDPS) Review Committee,
Chairperson. [Doc. 1 at 2-4]. The Complaint survived initial review under 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e) as to Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation
claims against Defendants Young, Chester, Biecker, and Farrish and
Plaintiff’s First Amendment censorship claims against Defendants Biecker,
Farrish, and Huneycutt, all in their individual capacities only. Plaintiff’s
remaining claims, including Plaintiff’s official capacity claims, failed initial
review and were dismissed. [Doc. 10 at 11-12].
After the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider its initial review
Order, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint largely restating his original
Complaint and adding allegations aimed at recapturing the dismissed claims.
On initial review of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, in addition to the claims
previously allowed to pass initial review, the Court allowed Plaintiff’s “stand-
alone” First Amendment censorship claims against Defendants Young,
Chester, and Huneycutt based on the denial of books, Plaintiff’s Fourteenth
Amendment due process claim against Defendant Fox, and Plaintiff’s official
capacity claims against all Defendants to pass initial review.
1 Christina Mingo Fox has since been substituted for Defendant John Doe. [6/22/2023
Text Order; see Docs. 22, 23].
Case 5:22-cv-00189-MR Document 48 Filed 04/08/24 Page 2 of 5

3
On November 6, 2023, the Court allowed Plaintiff’s motion to
supplement his Amended Complaint and to name another Defendant in this
matter, Assistant Unit Manager Scottie Scully, asserting a First Amendment
censorship claim against him. [Docs. 27, 30]. The same day, the Court
entered a scheduling order in this case setting the deadline to amend and
join parties as December 26, 2023, and the discovery completion deadline
as March 5, 2024. [Doc. 33].
On March 4, 2024, Plaintiff moved to amend the scheduling order to
allow him to amend his Amended Complaint to add new Defendants in this
matter. [Doc. 42]. Plaintiff argued that Defendants’ discovery responses
revealed that individuals other than Defendants Biecker, Farrish, and Scully
were responsible for the conduct Plaintiff had alleged against them. [Id. at
4]. Plaintiff also moved for an extension of the discovery completion deadline
and to dismiss Defendants Biecker, Farrish, and Scully. [Docs. 42-44]. The
Court granted Plaintiff’s motions, ordering Plaintiff to file a Second Amended
Complaint by April 1, 2024 and extending the discovery deadline to April 19,
2024. [Doc. 46]. The Court sua sponte extended the dispositive motions
deadline to July 3, 2024. [Id].
Now before the Court for initial review is Plaintiff’s Second Amended
Complaint in which Plaintiff largely restates the allegations of his previous
Case 5:22-cv-00189-MR Document 48 Filed 04/08/24 Page 3 of 5

4
Complaints and substitutes Defendants David Hollar, Timothy Metcalf, and
Stephanie Hall as the individuals responsible for the conduct previously
attributed to former Defendants Biecker, Farrish, and Scully.2 [Doc. 47].
The Court allows Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, which is the
sole operative Complaint in this matter, to survive initial review consistent
with the Court’s Order on initial review of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, as
supplemented. That is, Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claims against
Defendants Young and Chester; Plaintiff’s First Amendment censorship
claims against Defendants Huneycutt, Young, Chester, Hollar, Metcalf, and
Hall; Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against Defendant
Fox; and Plaintiff’s official capacity claims against Defendants Huneycutt,
Hollar, Metcalf, and Hall survive initial review.
Plaintiff is admonished that no further motions to amend his
pleadings in this matter will be allowed.
2 In his Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asserts official capacity claims against
Defendant Huneycutt, Hollar, Metcalf, and Hall and no longer asserts such claims against
Defendants Young and Chester. [Doc. 47 at 9; see Doc. 19 at 4-5]. Plaintiff also again
seeks to state a First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Huneycutt. [See
id. at 3-4]. The Court has already twice found Plaintiff’s allegations against Defendant
Huneycutt in this regard insufficient to state such a claim. [Doc. 10 at 8-9; Doc. 19 at 3].
The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to amend the scheduling order to allow him to add
Defendants Hollar, Metcalf, and Hall where Defendants Biecker, Farrish, and Scully were
dismissed, not to again attempt to state a retaliation claim against Defendant Huneycutt
long after the expiration of the deadline to amend. The Court will dismiss this claim.
Case 5:22-cv-00189-MR Document 48 Filed 04/08/24 Page 4 of 5

5
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Second Amended
Complaint is the sole operative Complaint in this matter. Of the claims
asserted therein, Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claims against
Defendants Young and Chester; Plaintiff’s First Amendment censorship
claims against Defendants Huneycutt, Young, Chester, Hollar, Metcalf, and
Hall; Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against Defendant
Fox; and Plaintiff’s official capacity claims against Defendants Huneycutt,
Hollar, Metcalf, and Hall survive initial review in accordance with this Order.
Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Huneycutt is
hereby DISMISSED. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)
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
Defendants David Hollar, Timothy Metcalf, and Stephanie Hall, who are
alleged to be current or former employees of the North Carolina Department
of Adult Corrections.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: April 8, 2024
Case 5:22-cv-00189-MR Document 48 Filed 04/08/24 Page 5 of 5