Opinion
5:23-CV-146-BO
09-12-2023
KAHLEIGHIA N. ROGERS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, et al., Defendants.
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Robert B. Jones Jr. United States Magistrate Judge
This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs' applications to proceed In forma pauperis [DE-2, -3] and for frivolity review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiffs have demonstrated appropriate evidence of inability to pay the required court costs, and the applications to proceed in forma pauperis are allowed. However, it is recommended that the complaint be dismissed.
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court shall dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks money damages from a defendant immune from such recovery. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i-iii); see Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 74 (4th Cir. 1994) (explaining Congress enacted predecessor statute 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) “to prevent abuse of the judicial system by parties who bear none of the ordinary financial disincentives to filing meritless claims”). A case is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); McLean v. United States, 566 F.3d 391, 399 (4th Cir. 2009) (“Examples of frivolous claims include those whose factual allegations are ‘so nutty,' ‘delusional,' or ‘wholly fanciful' as to be simply ‘unbelievable.'”). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law when it is “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. A claim lacks an arguable basis in fact when it describes “fantastic or delusional scenarios.” Id. at 327-28.
In determining whether a complaint is frivolous, “a court is not bound, as it usually is when making a determination based solely on the pleadings, to accept without question the truth of the Plaintiff's allegations.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). Rather, the court may find a complaint factually frivolous “when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Id. “The word ‘frivolous' is inherently elastic and not susceptible to categorical definition.... The term's capaciousness directs lower courts to conduct a flexible analysis, in light of the totality of the circumstances, of all factors bearing upon the frivolity of a claim.” Nagy v. Fed. Med. Ctr Butner, 376 F.3d 252, 256-57 (4th Cir. 2004) (some internal quotation marks omitted). In making its frivolity determination, the court may “apply common sense.” Nasim v. Warden., Md. House of Corr., 64 F.3d 951, 954 (4th Cir. 1995).
In order to state a claim on which relief may be granted, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly. 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. While a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, the plaintiff must allege more than labels and conclusions. Id.
In the present case, Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se, and pleadings drafted by a pro se litigant are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by an attorney. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). The court is charged with liberally construing a pleading filed by a pro se litigant to allow for the development of a potentially meritorious claim. See id.; Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,106 (1976); Noble v. Barnett, 24 F.3d 582, 587 n.6 (4th Cir. 1994). However, the principles requiring generous construction of pro se complaints are not without limits; the district courts are not required “to conjure up questions never squarely presented to them.” Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).
IL DISCUSSION
Plaintiff Sondra Bruton (“Bruton”) and Plaintiff Kahleighia Rogers (“Rogers”), Bruton's daughter, bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of Rogers' minor children, L.R., K.B., K.R., and K.G. Plaintiffs allege multiple grievances against the Cumberland County Department of Social Services and its employees related to removal proceedings involving the minor children. Plaintiffs contend Defendants violated their constitutional rights and assert claims for negligence, gross negligence, negligent supervision, gross negligent supervision, negligent misrepresentation, respondeat superior, negligent hiring and retention, gross negligent hiring and retention, fraud, legal malpractice, constructive fraud, and punitive damages and attorney's fees in excess of $20,000,000.00. Compl. [DE-1], This is the second action Plaintiffs have brought against these Defendants in this court. In September 2020, Plaintiffs filed a materially indistinguishable action based on the same set of facts alleged in this case. See No. 5:20-cv-477-BO [DE-1], In fact, the complaint filed in this case is identical to the Second Amended Complaint filed in the prior case. See id. [DE-22], The claims in that case, which Plaintiffs now attempt to reassert, were ultimately dismissed. See id. [DE-83].
Plaintiffs' claims here should be dismissed as barred by res judicata. “Claim preclusion, characterized as ‘res judicata' in North Carolina, applies when ‘a prior adjudication on the merits in a prior suit bars a subsequent, identical cause of action between the same parties or their privies,' and also ‘prevents relitigation of claims that ‘in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could have been presented for determination in the prior action.'” Mendible v. Special Proc. Div. of Wake Cnty. Clerk, No. 5:21-CV-00087-M, 2022 WL 433311, at *6 (E.D. N.C. Feb. 11, 2022) (quoting Orlando Residence, Ltd. v. All. Hosp. Mgmt., LLC, 375 N.C. 140, 150-51, reh 'g denied, 376 N.C. 532 (2020) (citations omitted)), affd sub nom. Mendible v. Special Proceeding Dep't of the Wake Cnty. Ct., No. 22-1259, 2022 WL 2303964 (4th Cir. June 27, 2022), cert, denied sub nom. Mendible v. Special Proc. Dep't of Wake Cnty. Ct., 214 L.Ed.2d 278 (2022). “The essential elements of res judicata are: (1) a final judgment on the merits in an earlier suit, (2) an identity of the cause of action in both the earlier and the later suit, and (3) an identity of parties or their privies in the two suits.” Id. (quoting Orlando Residence, Ltd., 375 N.C. at 151).
Plaintiffs here assert the same causes of action against the same defendants based on the same facts as in the prior action. Compare, No. 5:20-cv-477-BO, Sec. Am. Compl. [DE-22], with No. 5:23-cv-146-BO, Compl. [DE-1], The court determined in the prior action that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim or that the defendants were entitled to immunity, dismissed all claims, and entered a final judgment in favor of defendants. See No. 5:20-cv-477-BO, Mar. 10, 2021 Order [DE-20], Feb. 1, 2022 Order & M&R [DE-80], Mar. 21, 2022 Order [DE-83] & Judgment [DE-84] (dismissing Plaintiffs' complaint in its entirety). Plaintiffs may not relitigate the same claims against the same defendants where the court previously dismissed an identical complaint on the merits. See Witham v. Boyle, No. 5:19-CV-260-BR, 2019 WL 5483723, at *5 (E.D. N.C. July 30, 2019) (citing Williams v. Christenson, No. 5:14-CT-3089-F, 2014 WL 11497953, at *1 (E.D. N.C. Nov. 7, 2014) (holding that the doctrine of res judicata bars the plaintiffs claims because the “allegations have already been the subject of a prior complaint in this court”), aff'd, 593 Fed.Appx. 231 (4th Cir. 2015); Burgess v. Hamm, No. 5:11-CT-3229-F, 2012 WL 3704688, at *3 (E.D. N.C. Aug. 27, 2012) (holding that a claim was barred by res judicata when the court dismissed a prior complaint filed by the plaintiff and “both of his actions are predicated on the same facts”); Cannon v. Swindell, No. 7:01-CV-82-BR, 2001 WL 34704474, at *4 (E.D. N.C. Dec. 17, 2001) (dismissing case because “the Plaintiffs claims are essentially identical to those litigated in his prior case”), aff'd, 34 Fed.Appx. 905 (4th Cir. 2002)), report and recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 5444793 (E.D. N.C. Oct. 23, 2019). Accordingly, it is recommended that this action be dismissed.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs' applications to proceed in forma pauperis are ALLOWED, and it is RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed.
IT IS DIRECTED that a copy of this Memorandum and Recommendation be served on Plaintiff. You shall have until June 19, 2023, to file written objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation. The presiding district judge must conduct his or her own review (that is, make a de novo determination) of those portions of the Memorandum and Recommendation to which objection is properly made and may accept, reject, or modify the determinations in the Memorandum and Recommendation; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. See, e.g, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); Local Civ. R. 1.1 (permitting modification of deadlines specified in local rules), 72.4(b), E.D. N.C.
If you do not file written objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation by the foregoing deadline, you will be giving up the right to review of the Memorandum and Recommendation by the presiding district judge as described above, and the presiding district judge may enter an order or judgment based on the Memorandum and Recommendation without such review. In addition, your failure to file written objections by the foregoing deadline will bar you from appealing to the Court of Appeals from an order or judgment of the presiding district judge based on the Memorandum and Recommendation. See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985).