Davis v. Messer et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:24-cv-00233-MR
JAQUAN M. DAVIS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) ORDER
)
FNU MESSER, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
_______________________________ )
THIS MATTER is before the Court on initial review of the Plaintiff’s pro
se Complaint [Doc. 1]. The Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. [Doc.
6].
I. BACKGROUND
The pro se Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
addressing incidents that allegedly occurred at the Henderson County
Detention Center where he is a pretrial detainee. [Doc. 1]. He names as
Defendants: FNU Messer, a corporal; FNU Cox, a lance corporal; and FNU
Galloway, an officer. He claims that Defendant Galloway knocked the
Plaintiff to the floor when the Plaintiff refused to hand over his shower shoes;
that Defendant Cox punched Plaintiff’s face; that Defendant Messer
slammed the Plaintiff’s head into the concrete floor; that the Defendants
Case 1:24-cv-00233-MR Document 7 Filed 10/16/24 Page 1 of 7

2
carried him off of the housing block, strapped him into a chair and left him
there, immobilized; and that the Defendants refused to give him medical
attention or allow him to see the nurse although he was “bleeding
everywhere” and his “head [was] swollen.” [Doc. 1-1 at 1-2]. He seeks
compensatory and punitive damages. [Doc. 1 at 4].
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Because the 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
In its frivolity review, this Court must determine whether a 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-00233-MR Document 7 Filed 10/16/24 Page 2 of 7

3
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 (2023).
The body of the Complaint contains allegations against individuals who
are not named as defendants in the caption as required by Rule 10(a) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [See, e.g., Doc. 1-1 at 2 (referring to
Lieutenants Bradley and Helton, Sergeant McCray, and Officer Morgan)];
Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a) (“The title of the complaint must name all the parties[.]”);
Myles v. United States, 416 F.3d 551 (7th Cir. 2005) (“[T]o make someone a
party the plaintiff must specify him in the caption and arrange for service of
process.”); Perez v. Humphries, No. 3:18-cv-107-GCM, 2018 WL 4705560,
at *1 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 1, 2018) (“A plaintiff’s failure to name a defendant in the
caption of a Complaint renders any action against the purported defendant
Case 1:24-cv-00233-MR Document 7 Filed 10/16/24 Page 3 of 7

4
a legal nullity.”). The Plaintiff also uses vague terms and pronouns rather
than identifying the individual(s) involved in each allegation. [See, e.g., Doc.
1-1 at 2 (referring to “the nurse,” “first shift,” and “second shift”)]. These
claims are too vague and conclusory to proceed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)
(requiring a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader
is entitled to relief”); Simpson v. Welch, 900 F.2d 33, 35 (4th Cir. 1990)
(conclusory allegations, unsupported by specific allegations of material fact
are not sufficient); Dickson v. Microsoft Corp., 309 F.3d 193, 201-02 (4th Cir.
2002) (a pleader must allege facts, directly or indirectly, that support each
element of the claim). The allegations directed at individuals not named as
defendants or that are too vague and conclusory to be attributed to a
defendant are, therefore, dismissed without prejudice.
The Fourteenth Amendment “protects a pretrial detainee from the use
of excessive force that amounts to punishment.” Graham v. Connor, 490
U.S. 386, 395 n.10 (1989). To state an excessive force claim, a pretrial
detainee must show only that the force “purposely or knowingly used against
him was objectively unreasonable.” Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389
(2015). The standard for assessing a pretrial detainee’s excessive force
claim is “solely an objective one.” Id. In determining whether the force was
objectively unreasonable, a court considers the evidence “from the
Case 1:24-cv-00233-MR Document 7 Filed 10/16/24 Page 4 of 7

5
perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, including what the officer
knew at the time, not with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” Id. (citing Graham,
490 U.S. at 396).
A pretrial detainee’s claim based on deliberate indifference to a serious
medical need is properly brought pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment.
Short v. Hartman, 87 F.4th 593, 611 (4th Cir. 2023). To state such a claim,
a plaintiff must allege that:
(1) they had a medical condition or injury that posed a substantial
risk of serious harm; (2) the defendant intentionally, knowingly,
or recklessly acted or failed to act to appropriately address the
risk that the condition posed; (3) the defendant knew or should
have known (a) that the detainee had the condition and (b) that
the defendant’s action or inaction posed an unjustifiably high risk
of harm; and (4) as a result, the detainee was harmed.
Id. at 611. Under this standard, “the plaintiff [need not] show that the
defendant had actual knowledge of the detainee’s serious medical condition
and consciously disregarded the risk that their action or failure to act would
result in harm.” Id. “[I]t is enough that the plaintiff show that the defendant
acted or failed to act ‘in the face of an unjustifiably high risk of harm that is
either known or so obvious that it should be known.’” Id. (quoting Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 836 (1994)). It remains, however, insufficient “for
the plaintiff to allege that the defendant negligently or accidentally failed to
do right by the detainee.” Id. at 611-12.
Case 1:24-cv-00233-MR Document 7 Filed 10/16/24 Page 5 of 7

6
Taking the Plaintiff’s allegations as true and drawing all reasonable
inferences in his favor, the Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claims for the
use of excessive force and for deliberate indifference to a serious medical
need against all Defendants survive initial review as they are not clearly
frivolous.
IV. CONCLUSION
In sum, the Plaintiff’s Complaint passes initial review on the Plaintiff’s
claims for the use of excessive force and for deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need, and the remaining claims are dismissed without
prejudice.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. The Plaintiff’s Complaint [Doc. 1] passes initial review against
Defendants Messer, Galloway, and Cox for the use of excessive
force and for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.
2. The remaining claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
3. The Clerk is respectfully instructed to mail three blank summons
forms to the Plaintiff, which the Plaintiff shall fill out and return
for service of process on Defendants Messer, Galloway, and
Cox. Once the Court receives the completed summonses from
Case 1:24-cv-00233-MR Document 7 Filed 10/16/24 Page 6 of 7

7
Plaintiff, the Clerk shall direct the U.S. Marshal to effectuate
service upon the Defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: October 15, 2024
Case 1:24-cv-00233-MR Document 7 Filed 10/16/24 Page 7 of 7