BOLDER v. MERRITT, No. 1:2014cv00628 - Document 15 (M.D.N.C. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE signed by MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER on 05/15/2015. For the reasons stated herein, abstention is proper in this matter. However, the Court should stay the matter rather than dismiss this case with prejudice. RECOMMENDED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Docket Entry 10 ) be GRANTED IN PART, to the extent Defendant seeks abstention of this case based upon the Younger doctrine. FURTHER that this case be STAYED pending the resolution of the state court's criminal proceedings.(Taylor, Abby)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
BOLDER v. MERRITT Doc. 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA \ørLLrE J. BOLDER, ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. P,\TRICK T. MERRITT JR., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) 1,:1,4CY628 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE This matter is before the Coutt on a motion to dismiss by Defendant Pattick T. MettittJt. (Docket Entry 10.) Plaintiff WillieJ. Bolder fìled a tesponse. (Docket Entry 13.) For the resons that follow, the Court will recommend that the ptoceedings be stayed. I. Bacþround and PlaintifPs Allegations Plaintiff filed the Complaint on July 25, 201,4 alleging that Defendant, an investigator v¡ith the Cabartus County Police Depanment, carded out an unconstitutional seizure of his cell phone during the investigation of a homicide. (Complaint S V, Docket Entry 2.) Around Apdl 29,2014, Defendant came to PlaintifPs house to request a statement about an altetcation Plaintiff had witnessed. (Id.) Plaintiff answered the questions and agteed to gunshot residue test but not a lie detector test. (Id.) Defendant then asked fot numbets off of Plaintiffs phone which Plaintiff gave. (Id.) Defendant then said take your phone" because it had been used to contact the victim eadier a phone "I got to in the day. Qd.) Dockets.Justia.com Plaintiff was reluctant to give Defendant the phone fot a numbet of reasons, including the storing of personal infotmation on it. (U.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant stated that he had no choice and had to hand over the phone. Qd.) Plaintiff then gave Defendant his phone. (1/.) \X/tren asked, Defendant would not return the phone to Plaintiff. (d.) Plainttff alleges that Defendant had no wrrant charged with a cdme because fot his phone. (Id.) Plaintiff of a bank alleges that he was statement found on the phone. (Id. at requests that Defendant be tetminated, that Plaintiff be compensated 5) He fot pain and suffedng, and that any evidence connected to the phone be suppressed. (1/.) II. Standard of Review Defendant argues that dismissal is appropriate pursuant to Fedetal Rule of Civil Procedute 12þ)(6). A motion to dismiss püsuant to Rule 12þ)(6) tests the sufficiency the complaint. Edøards u. Ci6t of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231,243 (1999). of ,\ compiaint that does not "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its f^ce"' must be dismissed. Ashnoft u. Iqbal,556 U.S. 662, 678 Q009) (quoting Bell Atlantic u. Twombþ, 550 U.S. plaintiff pleads fac::ual 544,570 Q007)). ",\ claim has facial plausibility when the content that allows the coutt to draw the teasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct." Id.; see also Simmons dv United Mortg. dv l-.oaru Inuest., 634 F,3d 754, 168 (4th Cir. 201,1) ("On a Rule 12þ)(6) motion, a complaint must be dismissed if it does not allege enough facts face.") (emphasis to state a claim to telief that is þlaasible on its in original) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). The "court accepts all well-pled facts as true and consttues these facts in the light most favotable to the plaintiff in weighing the legal sufficiency of the complaint," but does not consider "Iegal 2 conclusions, elements enhancementfr] of a cause of action, bate assertions devoid unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or of factual arguments." Nemet Cheurolet, Ltd. u. Consømerffiirs.com, Inî.,591 F'.3d 250, 255 (4th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted). In othet words, the standatd requires a plaíntiff to aticulate facts, that, when accepted as ttue, demonsttate the plaintiff has stated a clum that makes it plausible he is entitled to relief. Frands u. Giacomelli,588 F'.3d 186, 193 (4th Cit. 2009) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, and Twombþ,550 U.S. Pro ¡e complaints are ^t 557). to be libetally construed in assessing sufficiency under the Fedetal Rules of Civil Procedure. Erickson u. Pardrc,551 U.S. 89,94 Q007). However, even undet this libetal consttuction, "gerì.erosity is not fantasy," àfld the court is not expected to plead a plainttf?s claim for him. Bender u. Sabarban Hosp., Inc., 1,59 F.3d 18ó, 192 (4th Cu. 1ee8). III. Discussion The abstention doctine of Yoanger u. Han'is ptovides that, absent extraoÍdtnary circumstancesl, a federal court should abstain from intetfeting with a pending state cdminal proceeding. 401. U.S. 37, 43-44 (1971). Abstention is appropriate when "(1) thete ate ongoing state judicial proceedings; (2) the ptoceedings implicate impottant state interests; 1 There are thtee exceptions to the Yoanger abstention tecognized by the Supteme Court: where (1) thete is a showing of bad faith ot hatassment by state officials tesponsible for the prosecution; Q) the state law to be applied in the cdminal proceeding is flagranúy and patently violative of express constitutional prohibitions; or (3) other extraordinary circumstances exist that present a fhteat of immediate and irtepatable i.i"ry. Niaens a. GiÌchri:t, 444 F.3d 237 ,24'1. (4th Cir. 2006) (Niuens II) (tnternal quotations and citation omitted). J and (3) there is an adeq,tate opportunity to taise federal claims in the state proceedings." Martin Marietta Corþ. u. Md. Comn'n on Hanan Re/ations,33 F.3d 1,392, 1,396 (4tb C:r.. 1,994) (citing Middlesex Cnry. Ethics Cornru'n u. Garden State Bar A$'ft,457 U.S. 423, 432 "pflhere the State cdminal ptosecution is pending, the comity concerns of (1,982)). Younger u. Harris and its progeny require abstention whete gtanting the requested telief would require adjudication of federal constitutional issues involved in the pending state action." Trauerso Penn, 874 tr.2d 209, 21,2 (4th present case. First, a. Cir. 1989) (citation omitted). ,\bstention is ptopet in the it is apparent here that the allegations in the Complaint involve an ongoing state criminal proceeding. Plaintiff seeks suppression of evidence related to an alleged unlawful seizute of a cell phone during a homicide investigatìon . (Jee Compl. S VI, Docket Etrtry 2; Pl.'s Resp. Br at 1, Docket F,ntty 7 .)2 "Second, North Carohna has a very important, substantial, and vital interest in preventing violations of its criminal laws." Niaens u. Gihhrist,319 F.3d 151., 754 (4th Cir. 2003) (Niuens I). Third, "ordinatily a pending state prosecution provides the accused a fau and suffìcient opportunity fot vindication of federal constitutional rights." Gilliam u. Foster,75 F'.3d 881, 904 (4th Cit. 1,996) (internal quotation omitted). Moreover, no basis exists to suggest that a Yoøruger exception is applicable hete. Therefote, this Coun should abstain from futher proceedings during the pendency of PlaintifÎs criminal mattet. zPlanttff does not rgue, nor does the recotd teflect, that the state cdminal ptoceedings have ended. Moreover, according to the Cabarus CountyJail, Plaintiff is awaiting tdal for his murder charge. See Inmate Detail, http://onlneservices.cabarr-uscounty.us/p2c/InmateDetail.aspx?navid=635672066713041084 (last visited May 1.4, 201,5). 4 In his motion, Defendant seeks complete dismissal (with ptejudice) of PlaintifPs claims as a tesult of the pending state proceedings. However, a sty tather than dismissal is approptiate to the extent Ptaintiff seeks money damages.3 ("State ctiminal proceedings do not defendants-such See Niuens II, 444 F.3d at 248 . . . allow for claims of money damages by ctiminal a claim is simpty not available."); Traueno, 874 F.2d at 21'3 ("fllh. appropriate course is to abstain by staying ptoceedings on monetaty as well as injunctive and declaratory claims."); Deakins u. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 202 (1'988) (holding that "the District Court has no disctetion to dismiss t^ther than to stay claims fot monetary rehef that cannot be redressed in the state proceeding)'); Sags u. Brannon,804F.2d274,280 (4th Cir. 1986) ("If the state criminal coutt rules that [a] search and seizure was unlawful, [fedetal plaintiffJ could not recover damages in dismissal wrth ptejudice is appropriate in the ptesent case, the Court finds no reason why those proceedings."). lØhile Defendant atgues this case should not be stayed.a III. CONCLUSION Fot the reasons stated above, abstention is ptoper in this màttel Flowevet, the Court should stay the mattet rathü than dismiss this case with prejudice. IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Docket Etttty 10) GRANTED IN PART, to the extent Defendant seeks abstention be of this case based upon Plaintiff seeks to be "compensated for þs] patn and suffedng, stress and mental anguish." (Compl. $ VI.) a In to his request for damages and suppression of evidence, Plaintiff wnts to "press chatges" and seeks termination of Defendant. (Compl $ VI, Docket Ently 2.) Plan:jlff notes that the only fotm of appropriate relief appears to be "return of the phone and damages for its loss." (Jee Pl.'s Resp. at 3 1, Docket Entry 13.) 5 ttre Younger doctdne. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this case be STAYED pending the tesolution of the state court's criminal proceedings. L St{fÈË h{45iÉtrú¡* Judge Durham, North Carohna }lf.ay 1.5,201.5 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
