DAVIS v. UNKNOWN JUDGE et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
LORNE LANDON DAVIS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) 1:25CV841
)
UNKNOWN JUDGE, et al., )
)
Defendant(s). )
ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, a detainee in Rockingham County, North Carolina, submitted a Letter
containing allegations about the handling of his criminal case in the state courts and seeking
to file a lawsuit concerning alleged violations of his constitutional rights. Given the nature
of some of the allegations, the Court treated the filing as a civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. The form of the Complaint is such that serious flaws make it impossible
to further process the Complaint. The problems are:
1. The filing fee was not received nor was a proper affidavit to proceed in forma
pauperis submitted, with sufficient information completed and signed by
Plaintiff, to permit review.
2. The Complaint is not on forms prescribed for use by this Court, nor is the
information requested by such forms and necessary to process the Complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A contained in Plaintiff’s submission. See LR
7.1(d).
Consequently, the Complaint should be dismissed, but without prejudice to Plaintiff
filing a new complaint, on the proper § 1983 forms, which corrects the defects of the
Case 1:25-cv-00841-WO-JEP Document 3 Filed 10/27/25 Page 1 of 3

2
present Complaint. To further aid Plaintiff, the Clerk is instructed to send Plaintiff new
§ 1983 forms, instructions, an application to proceed in forma pauperis, and a copy of
pertinent parts of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 (i.e., Sections (a) & (d)).
However, Plaintiff should be aware that his allegations appear to relate to state court
judges and prosecutors. Judges and prosecutors have absolute immunity from damages for
their judicial actions or participation in the judicial process. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S.
349 (1978) (discussing judicial immunity); Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993)
(discussing prosecutorial immunity).
Further, to the extent that Plaintiff instead seeks to have this Court intervene in his
state court criminal case, he must file those allegations in a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. If he seeks to do so, he should request the proper forms
from the Clerk’s Office. However, he should also be aware that it is not ordinarily proper
for this Court to intervene in pending state court matters. Such intervention can only occur
in instances of bad faith, irreparable injury beyond the burden of defending the criminal
action, or a lack of available state court remedies. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37
(1971); Gilliam v. Foster, 75 F.3d 881, 904-905 (4th Cir. 1996). Further, Plaintiff must
exhaust his state court remedies as to the claims he raises. Such exhaustion is required
under § 2241 just as it is for filing a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Braden v. 30th
Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 489–92 (1973).
In forma pauperis status is granted for the sole purpose of entering this Order and
Recommendation.
Case 1:25-cv-00841-WO-JEP Document 3 Filed 10/27/25 Page 2 of 3

3
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that in forma pauperis status is granted for the sole
purpose of entering this Order and Recommendation. The Clerk is instructed to send
Plaintiff § 1983 forms, instructions, an application to proceed in forma pauperis, and a
copy of pertinent parts of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 (i.e., Sections (a) & (d)).
IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed sua sponte without prejudice
to Plaintiff filing a new complaint or petition, on the proper forms, which corrects the
defects cited above.
This, the 27th day of October, 2025.
Case 1:25-cv-00841-WO-JEP Document 3 Filed 10/27/25 Page 3 of 3