LaKemper v. Huneycutt et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 5:24-cv-00118-MR
COBEY LAKEMPER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) ORDER
)
RONNIE L. HUNEYCUTT, 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.1 [Doc.
4].
I. BACKGROUND
The pro se Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
addressing incidents that allegedly occurred at the Alexander Correctional
Institution where he is still incarcerated. [Doc. 1]. He named as Defendants:
Ronnie L. Huneycutt, the Alexander CI warden; Amy L. Jenkins, the assistant
superintendent of programs; Joseph A. Huffman, a programs supervisor;
Heather Walker, a correctional officer; and Jennifer Bruce and Jennifer
1 The Court has now received the full filing fee. [See June 25, 2024 Docket Entry].
Case 5:24-cv-00118-MR-WCM Document 7 Filed 08/01/24 Page 1 of 6

2
Jepson, mailroom attendants.2 He asserts claims for violations of his First
and Fourteenth Amendment rights. [Id. at 3, 9-13]. He alleges that
Defendants Walker, Bruce, and Jepson rejected 10 pieces of incoming legal
mail, which particularly included legal mail sent to the Plaintiff by a court,
pursuant to an inherently flawed “verification” practice, and that this was
done without notice or an opportunity to appeal [id. at 6-14]; and that
Defendant Huffman terminated the Plaintiff from a favorable library clerk job
at the direction of Defendants Huneycutt and Jenkins in retaliation for
Plaintiff’s lawsuits against Alexander CI staff [id. at 14-15].
As injury, the Plaintiff claims that he is suffering ongoing injury from the
Defendants’ actions, i.e., that he is being deprived of his mail without due
process, that his present job is less favorable than his old job and results in
far less time outside of his cell, and that his mental health has deteriorated.
[Id. at 14, 16, 19]. He seeks a declaratory judgment, preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, costs, and
any other relief the Court deems just and appropriate. [Id. at 19].
2 The Plaintiff names Defendants Huneycutt, Jenkins, and Huffman in their individual
capacities, and the remaining Defendants in their individual and official capacities.
Case 5:24-cv-00118-MR-WCM Document 7 Filed 08/01/24 Page 2 of 6

3
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
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).
Case 5:24-cv-00118-MR-WCM Document 7 Filed 08/01/24 Page 3 of 6

4
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).
A plaintiff may not assert unrelated claims against unrelated
defendants in a single action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a), 20(a)(2); George v.
Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (noting that “[u]nrelated claims
against different defendants belong in different suits,” to prevent prisoners
from dodging the fee payment or three-strikes provisions in the Prison
Litigation Reform Act). “For example, Plaintiff may not pursue claims of
retaliation involving one set of defendants while simultaneously pursuing
claims for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against another
set of defendants.” Thomas v. Davey, No. 1:16cv925, 2017 WL 2691824, at
*2 (E.D. Cal. June 22, 2017). A plaintiff may only bring a claim against
multiple defendants when (1) the claim arises out of the same transaction or
occurrence, or series of transactions and occurrences; and (2) there are
common questions of law or fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Here, the Plaintiff
Case 5:24-cv-00118-MR-WCM Document 7 Filed 08/01/24 Page 4 of 6

5
brings multiple unrelated claims against unrelated defendants. These may
not be litigated in the same action. The Court cannot and will not blindly
select which related set of facts and Defendants that the Plaintiff might want
to pursue in this action. See Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274,
1278 (4th Cir. 1985) (the courts are not required to be “mind readers” or
“advocates” for incarcerated or pro se litigants.). At this stage, the Court
similarly declines to parse through the Plaintiff’s allegations and address
other deficiencies in the Plaintiff’s Complaint. The Complaint will, therefore,
be dismissed without prejudice.3
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that the Plaintiff’s
Complaint fails initial review and will be dismissed without prejudice. The
Court will allow the Plaintiff thirty (30) days to amend his Complaint, if he so
chooses, to properly state a claim upon which relief can be granted, in
accordance with the terms of this Order. Any amended complaint will be
subject to all timeliness and procedural requirements and will supersede the
Complaint. Piecemeal amendment will not be permitted. Should the Plaintiff
3 The dismissal is without prejudice to amend in the instant case and/or to raise unrelated
claims in a separate civil action. The Court makes no determinations about the potential
merit or procedural viability of such action(s).
Case 5:24-cv-00118-MR-WCM Document 7 Filed 08/01/24 Page 5 of 6

6
fail to timely amend his Complaint in accordance with this Order, the Court
will dismiss this action without further notice.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. The Complaint [Doc. 1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
2. The Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days in which to amend his
Complaint in accordance with the terms of this Order. If Plaintiff
fails to so amend his Complaint, this case will be dismissed and
closed without further notice.
The Clerk is respectfully instructed to mail the Plaintiff a blank § 1983
prisoner complaint form and a copy of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: August 1, 2024
Case 5:24-cv-00118-MR-WCM Document 7 Filed 08/01/24 Page 6 of 6