Nesbitt v. Mayorkas

W.D. North Carolina

Nesbitt v. Mayorkas

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina

DecidedOctober 31, 2024

Docket3:24-cv-00063

StatusUnknown

This text of Nesbitt v. Mayorkas (Nesbitt v. Mayorkas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Nesbitt v. Mayorkas, (W.D.N.C. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CASE NO. 3:24-CV-00063-FDW-DCK JOSEPH A. NESBITT, II, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, ) ) Defendant. ) )

THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte concerning the status of this case. Plaintiff filed his pro se Complaint and Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis on January 18, 2024. (Doc. Nos. 1–2.) On January 22, 2024, the Court issued an Order, granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Doc. No. 3.) The Court allowed Plaintiff twenty-one (21) days to file a superseding Amended Complaint. (Id.) On February 16, 2024, twenty-five (25) days after entry of the Court’s Order, Plaintiff filed an “Email/Letter.” (Doc. No. 4.) Plaintiff’s “Email/Letter” lists a series of chronological events he claims occurred during his employment at Charlotte-Douglas Airport. (Id.) A pro se complaint must be construed liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); see also Smith v. Smith, 589 F.3d 736, 738 (4th Cir. 2009) (“Liberal construction of the pleadings is particularly appropriate where . . . there is a pro se complaint raising civil rights issues.”). “The special judicial solitude with which a district court should view . . . pro se complaints does not transform the court into an advocate. Only those questions which are squarely presented to a court may properly be addressed.” Weller v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 1990). The Court gave Plaintiff twenty-one days to file a superseding Amended Complaint. To date, Plaintiff has not done so. As explained in its previous Order, the Court cannot construct claims for a party. (Doc. No. 3., p. 3.) IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have twenty-one (21) days of this Order (specifically on or before November 19, 2024) to file a superseding Amended Complaint in accordance with this Order and the Court’s previous Order, (Doc. No. 3). If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this Order, this case will be dismissed and closed without further notice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed: October 29, 2024

Frank D. Whitney ; United States District Judge □□□

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CASE NO. 3:24-CV-00063-FDW-DCK JOSEPH A. NESBITT, II, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, ) ) Defendant. ) )

THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte concerning the status of this case. Plaintiff filed his pro se Complaint and Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis on January 18, 2024. (Doc. Nos. 1–2.) On January 22, 2024, the Court issued an Order, granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Doc. No. 3.) The Court allowed Plaintiff twenty-one (21) days to file a superseding Amended Complaint. (Id.) On February 16, 2024, twenty-five (25) days after entry of the Court’s Order, Plaintiff filed an “Email/Letter.” (Doc. No. 4.) Plaintiff’s “Email/Letter” lists a series of chronological events he claims occurred during his employment at Charlotte-Douglas Airport. (Id.) A pro se complaint must be construed liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); see also Smith v. Smith, 589 F.3d 736, 738 (4th Cir. 2009) (“Liberal construction of the pleadings is particularly appropriate where . . . there is a pro se complaint raising civil rights issues.”). “The special judicial solitude with which a district court should view . . . pro se complaints does not transform the court into an advocate. Only those questions which are squarely presented to a court may properly be addressed.” Weller v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 1990). The Court gave Plaintiff twenty-one days to file a superseding Amended Complaint. To date, Plaintiff has not done so. As explained in its previous Order, the Court cannot construct claims for a party. (Doc. No. 3., p. 3.) IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have twenty-one (21) days of this Order (specifically on or before November 19, 2024) to file a superseding Amended Complaint in accordance with this Order and the Court’s previous Order, (Doc. No. 3). If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this Order, this case will be dismissed and closed without further notice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed: October 29, 2024

Frank D. Whitney ; United States District Judge □□□

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Nesbitt v. Mayorkas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nesbitt-v-mayorkas-ncwd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack