Summary
This Memorandum Opinion, Order, and Recommendation from a United States Magistrate Judge addresses a pro se plaintiff's applications to proceed in forma pauperis in two related civil rights lawsuits. The court analyzes various federal claims, including those under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3), concluding they fail to state a claim due to the absence of state action, lack of class-based discriminatory animus, and sovereign immunity doctrines. Consequently, the magistrate recommends dismissing all federal claims as frivolous and remanding the remaining state law claims without prejudice.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the federal claims were frivolous, failed to state a plausible claim, or sought relief from immune defendants under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
- Whether the private apartment-management defendants acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- Whether Plaintiff plausibly alleged a class-based discriminatory animus required for a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).
- Whether the Durham Police Department and Durham County District Attorney's Office were suable entities or persons under § 1983.
- Whether Plaintiff plausibly alleged municipal liability against the City of Durham under Monell.
- Whether Plaintiff plausibly alleged a Fourth Amendment false-arrest or malicious-prosecution claim against Officer Norris.
- Whether Plaintiff plausibly alleged a procedural due-process violation based on restrictions on apartment access and police officers' alleged failure to intervene.
- Whether the court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims after dismissal of all federal claims.
Holdings
- The § 1983 claims against Van Alen Apartments and the Northwood Ravin defendants fail because the pleadings do not plausibly allege that those private defendants acted under color of state law.
- The § 1985(3) conspiracy claims fail because Plaintiff did not plead facts showing racial or otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus.
- The claims against the Durham County District Attorney's Office and Durham Police Department should be dismissed because the District Attorney's Office is an arm of the State and the Police Department is not an independent suable entity under North Carolina law.
- The Monell claim against the City of Durham and corresponding official-capacity claims fail because Plaintiff alleged only conclusory assertions of a municipal policy or custom and did not plead facts connecting such a policy or custom to a constitutional violation.
- The § 1983 false-arrest and malicious-prosecution claims against Officer Norris fail because the pleadings contain only conclusory allegations that the arrest lacked probable cause.
- To the extent Plaintiff asserted a First Amendment retaliation claim against Officer Norris, it fails because the pleadings do not plausibly allege that Norris knew of Plaintiff's protected expressive activity or arrested him because of it.
- The procedural due process claims fail because Plaintiff did not identify a protected property or liberty interest, did not allege constitutionally inadequate procedures, and did not plausibly allege that the officers participated in the private restrictions or eviction.
- The court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and dismiss them without prejudice after dismissal of all federal claims.
Key quotations
“There is no such thing as a ‘§ 1983 malicious prosecution’ claim.” (25)
“This is simply not a federal civil rights action. What is left, instead, is a landlord and tenant dispute falling squarely within the jurisdiction of the [state] courts.” (33)
Factual background
Plaintiff was a tenant at Van Alen or Van Allen Apartments in Durham, North Carolina, and alleged that private apartment-management defendants restricted his access to common areas and amenities, pursued or reported criminal charges, and engaged in eviction-related conduct. He also alleged that Durham police officers arrested him or declined to intervene in the apartment-management dispute, including an alleged arrest for communicating threats and later restrictions from common areas and a community event. The pleadings asserted federal constitutional claims against private defendants, Durham governmental entities and police officers, and state-law claims.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed related civil-rights actions alleging First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations, conspiracy claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, municipal liability, and state-law claims arising from alleged apartment-access restrictions, eviction-related conduct, police involvement, and arrest. Plaintiff amended the pleadings before service or responsive pleadings were filed. The court granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis for the limited purpose of screening and recommended dismissal of all federal claims and declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.
Remand instructions
The magistrate judge recommended that the district court dismiss all federal claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and dismiss all state claims without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The opinion itself is a recommendation rather than a final district-court disposition.