From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mauney v. Obama

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Nov 29, 2011
3:11-cv-215-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C. Nov. 29, 2011)

Opinion

3:11-cv-215-RJC-DCK

November 29, 2011.


ORDER


THIS MATTER comes before the Court on its motion following the grant of pro se Plaintiff Fred W. Mauney, Jr.'s ("Plaintiff") "Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs." (Doc. No. 5). 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) provides that the Court must dismiss Plaintiff's case if it determines that it "(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." Because Plaintiff has a history of filing frivolous suits, the Court stayed service of process against the defendants pending the Court's review of Plaintiff's complaint. (Doc. No. 5 at 1, 1 n. 1).

Plaintiff's allegations against Defendants Barack Obama ("Obama"), Campaign for Change ("Campaign"), David Plouffe ("Plouffe"), Fox Charlotte ("Fox"), Bahakel Communications Ltd. ("Bahakel"), and the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department ("CMPD") must be dismissed as frivolous.

Only state actors may be charged with violations of Section 1983. Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S . 922, 937 (1982). Obama, the Campaign, Plouffe, Fox, and Bahakel are not state actors. Plaintiff's allegations against these defendants are DISMISSED.

CMPD is not a proper party to a suit under North Carolina law. Ellison v. Elledge, No. 3:10-cv-157-1, 2010 WL 1506904, at *1 (W.D.N.C . Apr. 14, 2010) (Mullen, J.) (citing Jones v. City of Greensboro, 277 S.E.2d 562, 576 (N.C. Ct. App. 1981), overruled on other grounds by Fowler v. Valencourt, 435 S.E.2d 530 (N.C. 1993)). Therefore, Plaintiff's claims against CMPD are DISMISSED.

In accordance with Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the Court advises the Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, that his case against the remaining defendants may be dismissed in whole, or in part, upon the Court's initial review. While Plaintiff has already exercised his opportunity to "amend [his] pleading once as a matter of course," the Court will entertain a motion to further amend his allegations against the remaining defendants if filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order. See FED. R. CIV. P. 15. The Court will grant Plaintiff leave to file a third amended complaint should justice so require. The Plaintiff's failure to amend his complaint with more particularized allegations may result in the dismissal of the Complaint with prejudice . IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs claims against Defendants Barack Obama, Campaign for Change, David Plouffe, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department, Fox Charlotte, and Bahakel Communications Ltd. are DISMISSED; and
2. Plaintiff shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order to file a motion to amend his complaint to include more particularized allegations.


Summaries of

Mauney v. Obama

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Nov 29, 2011
3:11-cv-215-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C. Nov. 29, 2011)
Case details for

Mauney v. Obama

Case Details

Full title:MAUNEY v. OBAMA

Court:United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina

Date published: Nov 29, 2011

Citations

3:11-cv-215-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C. Nov. 29, 2011)