Womble v. Honeycutt et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
5:26-cv-00059-MOC
EDWARD LAMONT WOMBLE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
vs. ) MEMORANDUM OF
) DECISION AND ORDER
) ON INITIAL REVIEW
)
RONNIE L. HONEYCUTT, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
____________________________________)
THIS MATTER is before the Court on initial review of Plaintiff’s Second Amended
Complaint, [Doc. 8], filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A.
Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis in this matter. [Docs. 2, 4].
I. BACKGROUND
Pro se Plaintiff Edward Lamont Womble (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner of the State of North
Carolina currently incarcerated at Alexander Correctional Institution (“Alexander”) in
Taylorsville, North Carolina. On March 18, 2026, he filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983, naming Ronnie L. Honeycutt, identified as the Warden at Alexander, and FNU Wilson,
identified as a Security Risk Group (“SRG”) Lieutenant at Alexander, as Defendants in this matter.
[Doc. 1]. Plaintiff named them in their individual and official capacities. [Id. at 2]. Plaintiff
purported to state claims against these Defendants for their alleged failure to protect him from
harm under the Eighth Amendment. [See Doc. 1]. Plaintiff’s Complaint, however, failed initial
review for his failure to state a claim for relief. [Doc. 5]. The Court allowed him to file an amended
Complaint correcting the deficiencies within 30 days. [Id. at 6].
Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, again naming Wilson and Honeycutt as Defendants.
Case 5:26-cv-00059-MOC Document 9 Filed 07/09/26 Page 1 of 5

2
[Doc. 6]. He also named the North Carolina Department of Adult Correction (NCDAC) as a
Defendant. [Id. at 1-2, 9]. Plaintiff again purported to state an Eighth Amendment claim based
on the alleged failure to protect him from harm. [Id. at 1-2, 4-5]. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint,
however, failed initial review for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim for relief. [Doc. 7 at 4-5]. The
Court offered the Plaintiff one additional opportunity to file an amended Complaint to state a claim
for relief. [Id. at 5-6]. The Court specifically advised the Plaintiff that he “must allege facts
showing that the substance of Plaintiff’s request for protective custody alerted Defendants to an
objectively serious risk of harm, which Defendants disregarded.” [Id. at 5].
Plaintiff timely filed a Second Amended Complaint, which is now before the Court on
initial review. [Doc. 8]. Plaintiff names Honeycutt and Wilson as the sole Defendants, suing them
in their individual and official capacities. [Id. at 2]. Plaintiff alleges only that, on July 14, 2025,
Plaintiff was assaulted on Green Unit, D-Bock at Alexander by two gang members, Wallace
Belfield and Tyler Nelson. [Id. at 5].
Plaintiff claims that Defendants violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment based on
their failure to protect him from harm. [Id. at 3]. Plaintiff claims he suffered various physical
injuries, including a broken eye socket, bleeding on his brain, pain, blurry vision, depression, and
a metal plate in his eye. [Id. at 5]. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief only. [Id.].
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, 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, § 1915A requires
an initial review of a “complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a
governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity,” and the court must identify
Case 5:26-cv-00059-MOC Document 9 Filed 07/09/26 Page 2 of 5

3
cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint 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 from 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 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).
“[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
Case 5:26-cv-00059-MOC Document 9 Filed 07/09/26 Page 3 of 5

4
Honeycutt and Wilson in their official capacities do not survive initial review and will be
dismissed.
The Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause imposes on prison
officials a duty to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners and other prison
officials. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994). Still, not “every injury suffered by
one prisoner at the hands of another . . . translates into constitutional liability for prison officials
responsible for the victim’s safety.” Id. at 834. To state a claim against a prison official for failure
to protect, an inmate must show: (1) “serious or significant physical or emotional injury,” and (2)
that prison officials exhibited deliberate indifference to inmate health or safety.” De’Lonta v.
Angelone, 330 F.3d 630, 634 (4th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). To be deliberately
indifferent, a prison official must “know of and disregard an objectively serious … risk of harm.”
Id.
To establish liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff “must affirmatively show that the
official charged acted personally in the deprivation of [his] rights.” Williamson v. Stirling, 912
F.3d 154, 171 (4th Cir. 2018) (cleaned up); see Vinnedge v. Gibbs, 550 F.2d 926, 928 (4th Cir.
1977) (citation omitted). Mere knowledge of a deprivation is insufficient. Williamson, 912 F.3d
at 171.
Taking Plaintiff’s allegations as true and giving him the benefit of every reasonable
inference, Plaintiff has again failed to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment based on the
failure to protect. Plaintiff alleges only that he was assaulted by two gang members. He makes
no allegations of personal participation by either Defendant and certainly nothing to show that
either Defendant knew of and disregarded an objectively serious risk of harm.
Because Plaintiff failed to amend his Complaint in accordance with the Court’s Order and
Case 5:26-cv-00059-MOC Document 9 Filed 07/09/26 Page 4 of 5

5
has otherwise properly failed to state a claim for relief, the Court will dismiss this action with
prejudice. See Green v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 790 Fed. App’x 535, 536 (4th Cir. 2020).
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended
Complaint with prejudice.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint [Doc. 8]
is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in accordance with the terms of this Order.
The Clerk is respectfully instructed to terminate this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: July 9, 2026
Case 5:26-cv-00059-MOC Document 9 Filed 07/09/26 Page 5 of 5