Jacobs v. Sams et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
5:26-cv-00068-FDW
JAMES JACOBS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
vs. )
) MEMORANDUM OF
) DECISION AND ORDER
JERMEY SAMS, et al., ) ON INITIAL REVIEW
)
Defendants. )
____________________________________)
THIS MATTER is before the Court on initial review of Plaintiff’s Complaint, [Doc. 1],
filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A. Plaintiff is proceeding in
forma pauperis. [Docs. 2, 4].
I. BACKGROUND
Pro se Plaintiff James Jacobs (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner of the State of North Carolina
currently incarcerated at Alexander Correctional Institution (“Alexander”) in Taylorsville, North
Carolina. On March 23, 2026, he filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, based on alleged
events at Alexander. [Doc. 1]. Plaintiff names Jermey Sams, identified as a Unit Manager at
Alexander, and Scott Pitts, identified as an Assistant Unit Manager at Alexander, as Defendants in
their individual and official capacities. [Id. at 2]. Plaintiff alleges that on February 2, 2026, and
March 2, 2026, Defendant Sams improperly rejected Plaintiff’s grievances and that, on February
11, 2026, Defendant Pitts improperly rejected Plaintiff’s grievance. [Id. at 5].
Plaintiff purports to state a claim under “Chapter G Section .0301.”1 [Id. at 3]. Plaintiff
1 The Court will address only those claims fairly raised by Plaintiff’s Complaint.
Case 5:26-cv-00068-FDW Document 5 Filed 03/27/26 Page 1 of 4

2
does not allege having suffered any injury. [See id. at 5]. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief and wants
the Defendants to be disciplined for their actions. [Id. at 5].
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
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).
Case 5:26-cv-00068-FDW Document 5 Filed 03/27/26 Page 2 of 4

3
“[T]he Constitution creates no entitlement to grievance procedures or access to any such
procedure voluntarily established by a state.” Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 75 (4th Cir. 1994). “An
inmate thus cannot bring a § 1983 claim alleging denial of a specific grievance procedure.” Booker
v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 855 F.3d 533, 541 (4th Cir. 2017). Plaintiff, therefore, has failed to state a
§ 1983 claim based on Defendants’ alleged improper responses to Plaintiff’s grievances.
Moreover, a policy violation does not rise to the level of a § 1983 claim absent a plausible
allegation of an underlying constitutional violation. See generally Jackson v. Sampson, 536 F.
App’x 356, 357 (4th Cir. 2013) (unpublished) (holding that “prison officials’ failure to follow
internal prison policies are not actionable under § 1983 unless the alleged breach of policy rises to
the level of constitutional violation”). As such, to the extent Plaintiff purports to state a claim
based on the violation of prison policy, he has failed to do so.
Furthermore, Plaintiff purports to sue the Defendants, who are state officials, in their
individual and official capacities. However, “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, any claim
Plaintiff purports to bring for monetary relief against the Defendants in their official capacities
necessarily fails and will be dismissed.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails initial review
Case 5:26-cv-00068-FDW Document 5 Filed 03/27/26 Page 3 of 4

4
and will be dismissed without prejudice. The Court will allow 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 Plaintiff fail to timely amend his Complaint in accordance with this Order, the
Court will dismiss this action without prejudice.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails initial review under 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B) for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim for relief and shall
be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in accordance with the terms of this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days in which to amend
her Complaint in accordance with the terms of this Order. If Plaintiff fails to so amend his
Complaint, the matter will be dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all Defendants are hereby DISMISSED as Defendants
in this matter.
The Clerk is respectfully instructed to mail Plaintiff a blank prisoner § 1983 form.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: March 26, 2026
Case 5:26-cv-00068-FDW Document 5 Filed 03/27/26 Page 4 of 4