Jefferson v. Boykins et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:24-cv-00219-MR
ANTONIO DUPREE )
JEFFERSON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) ORDER
)
)
T.J. BOYKINS, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
___________________________ )
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s recent letters directed
to the Clerk of Court. [Docs. 11, 12].
Pro se Plaintiff Antonio Dupree Jefferson (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner of
the State of North Carolina currently incarcerated at the Alexander
Correctional Institution in Taylorsville, North Carolina. He filed this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 19, 2024, against the following
Defendants: (1) T.J. Boykins, identified as a Sergeant Correctional Officer at
the Rutherford County Detention Center (the “Jail”); (2) Joey E. Brandle,
identified as a Rutherford County Sheriff’s Department Deputy (“Sheriff’s
Deputy”); (3) D.S. Chapman, identified as a Sheriff’s Deputy; (4) FNU Steele,
identified as a Jail Corporal; (5) FNU Smith, identified as a Jail Corporal; (6)
Case 1:24-cv-00219-MR Document 13 Filed 10/24/24 Page 1 of 6

2
John Doe 1, identified as a Sheriff’s Deputy; and (7) John Doe 2, identified
as a Sheriff’s Deputy, related to events he alleges occurred at the Rutherford
County Jail in Rutherfordton, North Carolina. [Id. at 3-5]. Plaintiff, a pre-trial
detainee at the time of the alleged incident, purported to state individual and
official capacity claims under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
[Doc. 1 at 6]. The Court, however, addressed only Plaintiff’s claims fairly
raised by the Complaint. [Doc. 5 at 3 n.1]. On filing Plaintiff’s Complaint, the
Clerk mailed Plaintiff a copy of the Court’s Standing Order of Instructions
governing pro se prisoner civil actions. [8/29/2024 Docket Entry]. Plaintiff’s
Fourteenth Amendment excessive force claim against all Defendants
survived initial review. [Doc. 5 at 6]. The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s official
capacity claims and Fourth Amendment claim based on alleged deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim
for relief. [Id. at 4-8]. In allowing Plaintiff’s excessive force claim to proceed,
the Court advised Plaintiff as follows:
Before the Court can facilitate service on the
Defendants John Doe 1 and John Doe 2, Plaintiff
must identify and 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.
Case 1:24-cv-00219-MR Document 13 Filed 10/24/24 Page 2 of 6

3
[Id. at 8]. On the Court’s direction, the Clerk mailed Plaintiff seven (7) blank
summonses to fill out and identify the Defendants for use by the U.S. Marshal
in effectuating service on Defendants. [Id. at 9].
On or about October 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed a letter directed to the
“United States District Court” asking what it means to conduct “a pre-service
discovery.” [Doc. 9; Doc. 9-2 (postmark)]. Plaintiff states that “the only
proper documentation” that can identify the Doe Defendants is camera
footage of the August 22, 2021 incident and “footage from the camera of the
1st and 2nd floor landing.” [Id.]. Plaintiff asks if he should send the request
for this footage to the Clerk or to the “District Attorneys office.” [Id.]. The
Clerk sent Plaintiff a form letter response, advising him that the Clerk’s Office
“is unable to provide legal advice to individuals on how to proceed with this
lawsuit.” [Doc. 9-1].
A few days later, Plaintiff filed a letter directed to the Clerk of Court
asking the Clerk to appoint him an attorney. [Doc. 11]. Plaintiff also
submitted completed Summonses1 at this time. [Doc. 10]. In his letter,
Plaintiff states that he is “legally unable to provide documentations, motions
1 The Summonses for the Doe Defendants identify them only as “John Doe 1” and “John
Doe 2,” respectively. [Doc. 10 at 11, 13]. The Clerk issued all seven Summonses to the
U.S. Marshal for service on Defendants. [See 10/15/2024 Docket Entry].
Case 1:24-cv-00219-MR Document 13 Filed 10/24/24 Page 3 of 6

4
and affidavits” in this matter. [Id. at 1]. Plaintiff also states that he is unaware
of the identities of the Doe Defendants and posits various ways in which he
might learn their names. [Id.]. Plaintiff also purports to provide the Clerk’s
Office with a list of needed “documentation,” including a discovery motion,
stored electronic material, affidavits from other inmates, and policy manuals.
[Id. at 2].
Then, on or about October 16, 2024, the Plaintiff filed an unsigned
letter directed to the Clerk of Court purporting to object to the Court’s initial
review Order, complaining that the undersigned “overlooked” the violation of
Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights, as “[Plaintiff] plainly stated … that … [he]
was brutally, maliciously and also sadistically beaten with closed fist” by
Defendants. [Doc. 12]. Plaintiff also complains that the Court failed to
“thoroughly address” Plaintiff’s official capacity claims. [Id.].
The Court will strike Plaintiff’s improper filings at Docket Nos. 11 and
12. As Plaintiff was advised in the Standing Order of Instructions in this
matter, “[l]etters sent to the Clerk of Court or Judge will not be answered.
Only Motions will be ruled on by the Court.” [Standing Order, ¶ 5; see id. at
¶ 4 (“Only documents properly filed with the Clerk of Court will be docketed
in this case.”) & ¶ 8 (“Premature, misdirected, or otherwise improper filings
will not be permitted.”)]. It is wholly inappropriate to seek legal advice or
Case 1:24-cv-00219-MR Document 13 Filed 10/24/24 Page 4 of 6

5
relief from the Clerk of Court. [Id. at ¶ 6 (“[N]o Court employee can provide
legal advice to any litigant.”)]. Moreover, it is Plaintiff’s duty, not the Clerk’s
or the Court’s, to pursue his case and to obtain discovery. [Id. at ¶ 7].
Additionally, Plaintiff’s letter at Docket No. 12 is unsigned and therefore
improper. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 (a).
The Court also notes that the Plaintiff made no effort to conduct pre-
service discovery to identify the Doe Defendants and ignored the Court’s
alternative instruction to “submit on the summonses any and all information
he knows that may assist in [the] identification [of the Doe Defendants] and
subsequent service on them.” Instead, Plaintiff simply directed the
Summonses to “John Doe 1” and John Doe 2.” Finally, Plaintiff complains
that the Court ignored his purported Eighth Amendment and official capacity
claims on initial review. The Court did not address Plaintiff’s Eighth
Amendment claim on initial review because his allegations did not implicate
the Eighth Amendment. Excessive force claims brought by pretrial detainees
are considered under the Fourteenth, not the Eighth, Amendment. Moreover,
the Court adequately addressed and properly dismissed Plaintiff’s official
capacity claims on initial review.
Plaintiff is strongly cautioned to carefully review the Standing
Order of Instructions, the Local Rules of this Court, and the Federal
Case 1:24-cv-00219-MR Document 13 Filed 10/24/24 Page 5 of 6

6
Rules of Civil Procedure before filing any further documents with this
Court. Any future improper filings may be summarily dismissed and/or
stricken from the record and may lead to sanctions up to and including
dismissal of this action.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s letters [Docs. 11, 12]
are hereby STRICKEN from the record in this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed: October 24, 2024
Case 1:24-cv-00219-MR Document 13 Filed 10/24/24 Page 6 of 6