IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
PISCES G. MADDEN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 1:25CV938 ) BRIAN ROLAND, JOSH ROBERTS, ) YVIRA BAEZ, ERIC GANN, TIM ) KNIGHT, and CITY OF EDEN, ) ) Defendants. )
ORDER, MEMORANDUM OPINION, AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on pro The Court must dismiss a case filed in se Plaintiff Pisces G. Madden’s forma pauperis if it fails to state a application to proceed in forma claim on which relief may be granted. pauperis. See Docket Entry 1. For the 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). To state a reasons set forth below, the Court will claim, “a complaint must contain grant the application for the limited sufficient factual matter, accepted as purpose of allowing the Court to true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is consider a recommendation of plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. dismissal. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting and citing Bell Atlantic Corp. I. DISCUSSION v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). That is, a plaintiff must Madden sues the defendants make factual allegations that are pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and “enough to raise a right to relief above 1988 and alleges violations of his the speculative level.” See Bell Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. at 555 Amendment rights. Compl. § II.A., (citation modified). “Thus, while a Docket Entry 2. The action plaintiff does not need to demonstrate apparently arose from an April 24, in a complaint that the right to relief 2024 traffic stop in Eden, North is ‘probable,’ the complaint must Carolina. See id. § III. advance the plaintiff’s claim ‘across the line from conceivable to plausible.’” Walters v. McMahen, 684 F.3d 435, 439 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting the traffic stop and “used unnecessary Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). The destruction and failed to take Court “accepts all well-pled facts as reasonable steps to end the unlawful true and construes these facts in the conduct alleged in [the] complaint.” light most favorable to the plaintiff, Id. § III.5. but does not consider legal conclusions, elements of a cause of After the stop, Madden requested that action, and bare assertions devoid of Supervisor Eric Gann be called. Id. § factual enhancement[,] . . . III.4. But “Gann failed to take unwarranted inferences, reasonable steps to end the unlawful unreasonable conclusions, or conduct alleged in [the] complaint” arguments.” Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. and “partook in the prohibited Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d techniques” in violation of the Fourth 250, 255 (4th Cir. 2009) (citation and Fourteenth Amendments. Id. modified). A pro se plaintiff’s “Gann also attempted to get complaint must be construed liberally [Madden] to sign a waiver regarding in his favor. See Jehovah v. Clarke, excessive force . . . .” Id. Madden 798 F.3d 169, 176 (4th Cir. 2015). alleges the City of Eden (sometimes referred to as “the City”) employs the As Madden alleges, Officer Joshua defendants and “is responsible for Roberts of the City of Eden Police [their] conduct[,]” as well as Department initiated a traffic stop on Magistrate “J.L. Carter [who] was April 24, 2024. Compl. § III.2. He influenced by Roberts resulting in “partook in the prohibited techniques Carter setting an excessive bond on and he used unnecessary destruction” the cases . . . which were dismissed[.]” in violation of the Fourth and Id. § III.6. Madden has sued the Fourteenth Amendments. Id. Former individual defendants in their official Officer Brian Roland arrived at the and individual capacities. See scene after the traffic stop and “used generally § III. excessive force and partook in prohibited techniques” in violation of A person may sue state actors, the Fourth and Fourteenth pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, “who Amendments. Id. § III.1. Roland also cause the deprivation of any rights, violated § 14-225 of the North privileges, or immunities secured by Carolina General Statutes “by falsely the Constitution.” Loftus v. Bobzien, reporting [that Madden] kicked him 848 F.3d 278, 284 (4th Cir. 2017) in his groins.” Id. Officer Yvira Baez (quoting Doe v. Rosa, 795 F.3d 429, and her K9 also arrived at the scene 436 (4th Cir. 2015)). “To state a claim after the traffic stop. Id. § III.3. She under § 1983 a plaintiff ‘must allege “partook in prohibited techniques” the violation of a right secured by the and violated the Fourth and Constitution and the laws of the Fourteenth Amendments. Id. Officer United States, and must show that the Tim Knight arrived at the scene after alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state duplicative of the § 1983 claim against law.’” Id. at 284-85 (quoting Crosby v. the City and should be dismissed City of Gastonia, 635 F.3d 634, 639 accordingly. (4th Cir. 2011)). A municipality is a “person” for purposes of § 1983. See A municipality is liable under § 1983 Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 only if it “follows a custom, policy, or U.S. 658, 690 (1978). practice by which local officials violate a plaintiff’s constitutional rights.” As for the individual capacity claims Owens v. Baltimore City State’s Att’ys against Roland, Roberts, Baez, Gann, Off., 767 F.3d 379, 402 (4th Cir. 2014) and Knight, Madden has not alleged (citing Monell, 436 U.S. at 694). The facts to support his conclusory Fourth Circuit has identified four allegations that Roland “used ways to satisfy Monell: excessive force”; Roland, Roberts, Baez, and Gann “partook in (1) “Through an express policy, prohibited techniques;” Roberts and such as a written ordinance or Knight used “unnecessary regulation”; destruction”; Roberts influenced the Magistrate to enforce an “excessive (2) “Through the decisions of a bond”; Gann and Knight “failed to person with final policymaking take reasonable steps to end the authority”; unlawful conduct”; and Gann attempted to have Madden sign a (3) “Through an omission, such as waiver of “excessive force.” These are a failure to properly train legal conclusions without any factual officers, that manifests support. Therefore, the Court should deliberate indifference to the dismiss the individual capacity claims rights of citizens”; or against Roland, Roberts, Baez, Gann, and Knight. (4) “Through a practice that is so persistent and widespread as to To the extent that Madden alleges constitute a custom or usage supervisory liability against Gann, with the force of law.” that claim fails for the same reasons. See Evans v. Chalmers, 703 F.3d 636, Howard v. City of Durham, 68 F.4th 654 (4th Cir. 2012) (requiring “a 934, 952 (4th Cir. 2023) (citation predicate constitutional violation” for modified). “Proof of a single incident supervisory liability).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
PISCES G. MADDEN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 1:25CV938 ) BRIAN ROLAND, JOSH ROBERTS, ) YVIRA BAEZ, ERIC GANN, TIM ) KNIGHT, and CITY OF EDEN, ) ) Defendants. )
ORDER, MEMORANDUM OPINION, AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on pro The Court must dismiss a case filed in se Plaintiff Pisces G. Madden’s forma pauperis if it fails to state a application to proceed in forma claim on which relief may be granted. pauperis. See Docket Entry 1. For the 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). To state a reasons set forth below, the Court will claim, “a complaint must contain grant the application for the limited sufficient factual matter, accepted as purpose of allowing the Court to true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is consider a recommendation of plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. dismissal. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting and citing Bell Atlantic Corp. I. DISCUSSION v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). That is, a plaintiff must Madden sues the defendants make factual allegations that are pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and “enough to raise a right to relief above 1988 and alleges violations of his the speculative level.” See Bell Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. at 555 Amendment rights. Compl. § II.A., (citation modified). “Thus, while a Docket Entry 2. The action plaintiff does not need to demonstrate apparently arose from an April 24, in a complaint that the right to relief 2024 traffic stop in Eden, North is ‘probable,’ the complaint must Carolina. See id. § III. advance the plaintiff’s claim ‘across the line from conceivable to plausible.’” Walters v. McMahen, 684 F.3d 435, 439 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting the traffic stop and “used unnecessary Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). The destruction and failed to take Court “accepts all well-pled facts as reasonable steps to end the unlawful true and construes these facts in the conduct alleged in [the] complaint.” light most favorable to the plaintiff, Id. § III.5. but does not consider legal conclusions, elements of a cause of After the stop, Madden requested that action, and bare assertions devoid of Supervisor Eric Gann be called. Id. § factual enhancement[,] . . . III.4. But “Gann failed to take unwarranted inferences, reasonable steps to end the unlawful unreasonable conclusions, or conduct alleged in [the] complaint” arguments.” Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. and “partook in the prohibited Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d techniques” in violation of the Fourth 250, 255 (4th Cir. 2009) (citation and Fourteenth Amendments. Id. modified). A pro se plaintiff’s “Gann also attempted to get complaint must be construed liberally [Madden] to sign a waiver regarding in his favor. See Jehovah v. Clarke, excessive force . . . .” Id. Madden 798 F.3d 169, 176 (4th Cir. 2015). alleges the City of Eden (sometimes referred to as “the City”) employs the As Madden alleges, Officer Joshua defendants and “is responsible for Roberts of the City of Eden Police [their] conduct[,]” as well as Department initiated a traffic stop on Magistrate “J.L. Carter [who] was April 24, 2024. Compl. § III.2. He influenced by Roberts resulting in “partook in the prohibited techniques Carter setting an excessive bond on and he used unnecessary destruction” the cases . . . which were dismissed[.]” in violation of the Fourth and Id. § III.6. Madden has sued the Fourteenth Amendments. Id. Former individual defendants in their official Officer Brian Roland arrived at the and individual capacities. See scene after the traffic stop and “used generally § III. excessive force and partook in prohibited techniques” in violation of A person may sue state actors, the Fourth and Fourteenth pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, “who Amendments. Id. § III.1. Roland also cause the deprivation of any rights, violated § 14-225 of the North privileges, or immunities secured by Carolina General Statutes “by falsely the Constitution.” Loftus v. Bobzien, reporting [that Madden] kicked him 848 F.3d 278, 284 (4th Cir. 2017) in his groins.” Id. Officer Yvira Baez (quoting Doe v. Rosa, 795 F.3d 429, and her K9 also arrived at the scene 436 (4th Cir. 2015)). “To state a claim after the traffic stop. Id. § III.3. She under § 1983 a plaintiff ‘must allege “partook in prohibited techniques” the violation of a right secured by the and violated the Fourth and Constitution and the laws of the Fourteenth Amendments. Id. Officer United States, and must show that the Tim Knight arrived at the scene after alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state duplicative of the § 1983 claim against law.’” Id. at 284-85 (quoting Crosby v. the City and should be dismissed City of Gastonia, 635 F.3d 634, 639 accordingly. (4th Cir. 2011)). A municipality is a “person” for purposes of § 1983. See A municipality is liable under § 1983 Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 only if it “follows a custom, policy, or U.S. 658, 690 (1978). practice by which local officials violate a plaintiff’s constitutional rights.” As for the individual capacity claims Owens v. Baltimore City State’s Att’ys against Roland, Roberts, Baez, Gann, Off., 767 F.3d 379, 402 (4th Cir. 2014) and Knight, Madden has not alleged (citing Monell, 436 U.S. at 694). The facts to support his conclusory Fourth Circuit has identified four allegations that Roland “used ways to satisfy Monell: excessive force”; Roland, Roberts, Baez, and Gann “partook in (1) “Through an express policy, prohibited techniques;” Roberts and such as a written ordinance or Knight used “unnecessary regulation”; destruction”; Roberts influenced the Magistrate to enforce an “excessive (2) “Through the decisions of a bond”; Gann and Knight “failed to person with final policymaking take reasonable steps to end the authority”; unlawful conduct”; and Gann attempted to have Madden sign a (3) “Through an omission, such as waiver of “excessive force.” These are a failure to properly train legal conclusions without any factual officers, that manifests support. Therefore, the Court should deliberate indifference to the dismiss the individual capacity claims rights of citizens”; or against Roland, Roberts, Baez, Gann, and Knight. (4) “Through a practice that is so persistent and widespread as to To the extent that Madden alleges constitute a custom or usage supervisory liability against Gann, with the force of law.” that claim fails for the same reasons. See Evans v. Chalmers, 703 F.3d 636, Howard v. City of Durham, 68 F.4th 654 (4th Cir. 2012) (requiring “a 934, 952 (4th Cir. 2023) (citation predicate constitutional violation” for modified). “Proof of a single incident supervisory liability). of unconstitutional activity is not sufficient to impose liability under The official capacity claims against Monell, unless proof of the incident these defendants are “essentially [] includes proof that it was caused by an claim[s] against” the City of Eden. See existing, unconstitutional municipal Love-Lane v. Martin, 355 F.3d 766, policy[.]” City of Oklahoma City v. 783 (4th Cir. 2004). As such, they are Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 823–24 (1985); accord Kissinger-Stankevitz v. Town with the City, the City’s failure to train of Tappahannock, 750 F. Supp. 3d the officers properly resulting in 590, 614 (E.D. Va. 2024), affd, No. deliberate indifference to citizen’s 24-2270, 2025 WL 3046480 (4th Cir. rights, or a practice that is so Oct. 31, 2025). persistent and widespread to be a custom with the force of law. Here, Madden merely alleges that the Accordingly, the Court should dismiss City of Eden is liable because it is “the Madden’s claims against the City of agency responsible for the conduct of Eden, as well. the other five Defendants whom they employ(ed).” Compl. § III.6. This is II. CONCLUSION insufficient to state a claim against the city. It is therefore ORDERED that Connell’s application to proceed in First, Madden has not sufficiently forma pauperis, Docket Entry 1, is alleged that any of the individual GRANTED for the limited purpose defendants violated his constitutional of allowing the Court to consider a rights. Even had he done so, he has recommendation of dismissal. It is not alleged that those violations RECOMMENDED that this case be resulted from an express policy of the dismissed under 28 U.S.C. City of Eden, decisions of a person § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a with final policymaking authority claim.
J ie Gibson McFadden United States Magistrate Judge
March 11, 2026 Durham, North Carolina