Shaunesi Yvette DeBerry v. Duke University Health System, Inc., operating through Duke Regional Hospital and Duke Homecare & Hospice, and Hospice of Wake County, Inc., doing business as Transitions Lifecare

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

SHAUNESI YVETTE DEBERRY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 1:26CV724 ) DUKE UNIVERSITY HEALTH ) SYSTEM, INC., operating through ) DUKE REGIONAL HOSPITAL and ) DUKE HOMECARE & HOSPICE, ) and ) HOSPICE OF WAKE COUNTY, INC., ) doing business as TRANSITIONS ) LIFECARE, ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION, ORDER, AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on pro unstable diabetes management.” se plaintiff Shaunesi Yvette DeBerry’s Compl. ¶ 19, Docket Entry 2. At the application to proceed in forma same time, he was battling metastatic pauperis. See Docket Entry 1. For the cancer. Id. at ¶ 31P. Defendants Duke reasons set forth below, the Court will University Health System, Inc., grant the application for the limited operating through Duke Regional purpose of allowing the Court to Hospital and Duke Homecare & consider a recommendation of Hospice (collectively “Duke”) and dismissal. Hospice of Wake County, Inc., doing business as Transitions LifeCare I. FACTS (“Transitions”) were involved in Mr. DeBerry’s medical care and In October and November 2020, treatment. Id. at ¶¶ 21-22. Shaunesi Yvette DeBerry’s father, Larry DeBerry, Sr. (“Mr. DeBerry”), At some point during this period of “experienced serious medical issues, time, Adult Protective Services including altered mental status, (“APS”) opened an investigation into episodes in which he was found the home care that Mr. DeBerry’s confused or unresponsive, and personal caregiver was supposed to be providing. Id. ¶ 25. The Duke home equipment, participate more fully in care nurse who had treated Mr. care planning, document the DeBerry provided medical records conditions, protect her relationship and “a reassuring opinion” to APS with her father, and preserve her own despite the personal caregiver’s legal rights while he was alive.” Id. failings. Id. ¶¶ 25, 31I. A Duke social ¶ 31W. Furthermore, she alleges that worker and the home care nurse told the time she had to dedicate to her DeBerry and her family that they independent investigation of her would share information, but they father’s care and death “materially later limited their communications to interfered with her career, nonprofit Mr. DeBerry’s personal caretaker. Id. work, professional training, ¶ 31J. reputation, earning capacity, housing stability, civic engagement, public- DeBerry “was removed from her service activities, and parenting father’s residence during his final responsibilities.” Id. ¶¶ 55-56. She days,” and, as a result of protective had to withdraw her daughter from orders and other proceedings, she was private school and “repeatedly not permitted contact with her father rearrange family life while trying to and was excluded from all matters obtain basic answers.” Id. ¶ 57. All of related to his death and estate. Id. this caused her mental and physical ¶ 27. Mr. DeBerry passed away late health to decline. Id. ¶ 58. November 17, 2020 or November 18, 2020.1 Id. ¶¶ 30A, 31P. As a result, DeBerry alleges Duke and Transitions negligently failed to In January 2021, DeBerry began communicate with her and provide pursuing the individuals she believed her complete information (counts one were responsible for failing to provide and two), committed fraud by her information about her father’s providing her incomplete information death, namely the time of and (count three), and negligently, or, in circumstances surrounding his death. the alternative, intentionally inflicted Id. ¶¶ 31L-31P. No one has given her emotional distress by providing her any of her father’s medical records. Id. incomplete information (counts four ¶¶ 31P-31R. This has “prolonged her and five). She alleges that Duke inability to begin an informed abused process when it sought a grieving process.” Id. ¶ 31S. gatekeeping order in state court Furthermore, she claims that “Duke’s (count six). She also seeks declaratory incomplete and restricted relief “defining Defendants’ present communications deprived her obligations, if any,” related to records personally of the opportunity to return to North Carolina earlier, obtain or purchase needed

1 DeBerry alleges in her complaint that surrounding the time and date of her “materially different entries” exist father’s passing. Compl. ¶¶ 27-30. material to these claims (count Md. House of Corr., 64 F.3d 951, 954 seven). (4th Cir. 1995)).

As relief for these alleged injuries, A complaint is considered frivolous DeBerry seeks at least $47 million in when it “lacks an arguable basis either damages and declaratory relief. See in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, id. ¶¶ 1-5. 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see Hastings v. United States, 165 Fed. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Cl. 1, 8 (2023) (finding a complaint frivolous when it sought “[P]aupers filing pro se petitions are “extraordinary relief while alleging not subject to the financial myriad violations of Plaintiff’s rights considerations – filing fees [among with minimal specificity as to the them] – that deter other litigants from allegations and relevant facts”). filing frivolous petitions.” In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184 (1989). “But the [Neitzke] court did not purport to make this an exhaustive Because of this, the Court shall formulation of the term ‘frivolous’ dismiss a case filed in forma pauperis . . . . The word ‘frivolous’ is inherently if it determines that the action is elastic and not susceptible to frivolous or malicious. See 28 U.S.C. categorical definition . . . . The term’s § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Section 1915’s capaciousness directs lower courts to “instruction that an action may be conduct a flexible analysis, in light of dismissed if the court is ‘satisfied’ that the totality of the circumstances, of all it is frivolous indicates that factors bearing upon the frivolity of a frivolousness is a decision entrusted claim.” Nagy, 376 F.3d at 256-57 to the discretion of the court (emphasis added). In fact, “district entertaining the in forma pauperis courts are at liberty to consider any petition.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 factors that experience teaches bear U.S. 25, 33 (1992). on the question of frivolity. Id. at 257 (emphasis added). “[T]he ability to dismiss frivolous complaints under § 1915 . . . confers a “In deciding whether to exercise their ‘wide latitude’ and ‘meaningful discretion to deny a request for [in discretion’ upon the district courts.” forma pauperis] filing status, courts Nagy v. Fed. Med. Ctr. Butner, 376 may consider the ‘number, content, F.3d 252, 256 (4th Cir. 2004) frequency, and disposition of the (quoting Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72, [litigant’s] previous filings.’” Blakely 74 (4th Cir. 1994); Nasim v. Warden, v. Wards, 738 F.3d 607, 620 (4th Cir. 2013) (en banc) (quoting Butler v. Dep’t of Justice, 492 F.3d 440, 445 appeal as being without merit. (D.C. Cir. 2007)). 21E236.

“In order to prevent frivolous • An attempt to stop the partition petitions for extraordinary relief from of jointly owned property. The unsettling the fair administration of court affirmed the denial and justice, the Court has a duty to deny in found her appeal to be without forma pauperis status to those merit. 21SP604. individuals who have abused the system.” In re Sindram, 498 U.S. 177, • A civil suit against a family 180 (1991); see also Neitzke, 490 U.S. member. The court dismissed at 327. the suit as being without merit. 21CVS3145. The Court should find this action frivolous and dismiss it. • A civil suit against a family

member. The court dismissed III. DISCUSSION the suit as being without merit.

21CVS3274. A. The Superior Court of

Durham County entered a Gatekeeping Order against • A civil suit against family DeBerry. members and her father’s personal caregiver. The court This is not DeBerry’s first action dismissed the suit as being against parties involved in the care of without merit. 21CVS3276. her father and execution of his estate; she “has filed over eleven lawsuits in • An action against the Durham North Carolina.” See DeBerry v. Duke County Trial Court Homecare & Hospice, et al., Administrator. The Industrial 21CVS003970-310, Order Allowing Commission dismissed the Pre-Filing Injunctive Relief ¶ 9 (Aug. matter as being without merit. 15, 2022) (“Gatekeeping Order”). • A civil suit against Duke Home In 2021, she pursued and lost the Care & Hospice, Duke Regional following actions in Durham County: Hospital, and Duke Health. The court ultimately entered a • An attempt to remove her half- Gatekeeping Order against brother as the personal DeBerry. 21CVS3970. representative of their father’s estate. The court dismissed her See id. ¶¶ 1-7, 11.

As those actions progressed, the defendants sought gatekeeping orders which the court initially denied “in the jurisdictions other than Durham hope that Shaunesi DeBerry would County.” Id. ¶ 10. She told the court moderate her aggressive litigation. that “she would not stop litigating Instead, she has persisted and, in fact, until she got answers about what time increased her court filings and email her father died.” Id. ¶ 12. She “has contacts. In each case, she has made clearly stated in open recorded the same arguments and contentions hearings that she intends to continue as the motivations for her actions.” Id. this course of litigation, in both the at 6 ¶ 5. State and Federal courts.” Id. ¶ 21.

In those state actions, “there was a The court ultimately enjoined common theme” – DeBerry’s DeBerry from filing any matters attempts “to hold [individuals and related to or arising out of her father’s entities] accountable for what she medical care or estate without written perceives to be the wrongful death certification by a licensed attorney. and alleged ‘cover-up’ of the cause of See id. at 7 ¶¶ 1-2. The court death and information about her permitted DeBerry to file a motion to father.” Id. ¶ 7. But “she has never review the injunction after eighteen provided any facts that would support months. Id. at 8 ¶ 4. any legally recognizable claims against any of these defendants.” Id. ¶ DeBerry appealed the Gatekeeping 12. And she pursued each of these Order, and the North Carolina Court actions as an indigent filer. Id. ¶ 19. of Appeals dismissed her appeal with prejudice. The court outlined a series In addition to those meritless matters, of violations of appellate procedure DeBerry’s conduct and statements to that DeBerry committed during the the court were also concerning. For pendency of the appeal, including a example, she sent numerous “hostile failure “to include a non- and insulting” emails to the Durham argumentative statement of facts,” County court staff. Id. ¶ 13.a.—h. The “grossly improper ad hominem court ordered her to stop, but she attacks on trial court officials,” and continued sending emails to the “the filing of [four] frivolous motions presiding judge with even more before [the court].” Order, Case No. “vituperative content than the emails 22-969 (N.C. Ct. App. June 27, 2023). she sent the court staff.” Id. ¶¶ 14, 15.

When the court held a hearing on the Duke defendants’ motion for the Gatekeeping Order, DeBerry said she did not intend to file any more actions in Durham County, “but clearly and convincingly implied that she intended to pursue litigation in an Amended Complaint which is B. DeBerry filed suit in federal awaiting review on her motion to court against a Durham proceed in forma pauperis, as well as County Superior Court additional filings. See Docket Entries Judge and the Clerk of 15-20. Court. C. The Court should dismiss Frustrated with the state court’s delay this action as frivolous. in addressing her June 12, 2024 motion to review and modify the As detailed above, the state court Gatekeeping Order, DeBerry brought found DeBerry’s filings related to her her claims to this District. father’s death to be so numerous and meritless and her disregard for court In 1:25CV1031, she sued the Senior orders to be so troubling that it Resident Superior Court Judge for enjoined her from filing any similar Durham County and the Durham actions in North Carolina state courts. County Clerk of Court for denial of access to courts. See Compl. ¶ 7, This court similarly dismissed the Docket Entry 2. Although she filed related action that she filed. Notably, and the Clerk’s Office received her she brought that action on November motion on June 12, 2024, no one 12, 2025, after the North Carolina referred it to a judge. Id. ¶ 8. Supreme Court dismissed her petition According to DeBerry, this failure was for a writ of mandamus – which she a violation of the defendants’ sought for the very same conduct that ministerial duties. Id. ¶ 9. She formed the basis of that federal petitioned the North Carolina action. Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus which the Court While her first federal matter was dismissed on May 29, 2025. Id. ¶ 11. pending, she filed the instant action DeBerry claimed that, as a result, she against Duke and Transitions alleging had no state remedy and, therefore, transgressions related to and arising brought the action here. Id. ¶ 12. from the lack of communication surrounding her father’s last days and DeBerry sought in forma pauperis death. In other words, DeBerry has status, and, upon review of her repackaged her frustrations – the Complaint, the court recommended same or similar ones for which she dismissing the action for failure to sought relief in state court and lost. state a claim. See Order & R., Docket Entry 5. Over DeBerry’s objections, In In re Sindram, a pro se petitioner the district court adopted the exhibited an extensive history of recommendation and dismissed the filings. 498 U.S. at 177-79. In three action without prejudice. See Order, years, and across twenty-seven Docket Entry 14. She has since filed different legal actions, the plaintiff “filed 43 separate petitions and See Nagy, 376 F.3d at 256-57; motions . . . [across] five different Blakely, 738 F.3d at 620. state and federal courts . . . [that all related] to a speeding ticket that that Furthermore, the complaint “lacks an [the plaintiff] received[.]” Id. at 178- arguable basis either in law or in fact.” 79. In every instance, the plaintiff Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325. DeBerry “persisted in raising essentially the asks for $47 million from Duke and same arguments in an unending Transgressions, not for medical series of filings.” Id. at 178. In denying malpractice, but for breaching an the plaintiff’s in forma pauperis alleged duty to provide her with application, the Supreme Court complete information – yet she was reasoned that the in forma pauperis’s not her father’s primary caregiver, “goal of fairly dispensing justice . . . is and she does not allege that she has compromised when the Court is any legal rights or her father’s consent forced to devote its limited resources to access information about his to the processing of repetitious and healthcare. See, e.g., N.C. Gen. Stat. frivolous requests.” Id. at 179-80. § 143-518 (providing the limited circumstances under which a covered Although DeBerry has thus far filed entity may disclose medical records, fewer lawsuits than the petitioner in none of which are alleged here). None Sindram, she has filed eleven of the facts plausibly allege negligence meritless lawsuits in state court as an or negligent infliction of emotional indigent, followed by the two actions distress. See, e.g., Keith v. Health-Pro in this court, arising under a single set Home Care Servs., Inc., 873 S.E.2d of operative facts. Just like the 567, 574 (N.C. 2022) (listing elements Sindram petitioner, DeBerry has of a negligence claim); Demarco v. “persisted in raising essentially the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hosp. Auth., same arguments” across all suits. 836 S.E.2d 322, 328 (N.C. Ct. App. 2019) (providing elements of a Considering the totality of negligent infliction of emotional circumstances – including the distress claim). number, substance, frequency, and disposition of DeBerry’s previous To bring the fraudulent concealment filings; the unsupported claims of claim against Duke and Transitions, negligence and fraud she asserts in DeBerry must believe, among other the instant action arising out of the things, that they intended to deceive same events as her previously her with their false statements or dismissed lawsuits; and her request concealment of material facts. See, for $47 million in damages for Duke’s e.g., Claggett v. Wake Forest Univ., alleged provision of incomplete 486 S.E.2d 443, 447 (N.C. Ct. App. information – this action is frivolous. 1997). But she alleges no facts supporting this theory. The same is true for her allegation of constructive fraud which requires, among other death and information about her things, a confidential relationship father.” See id. ¶ 7. between DeBerry and the defendants. See Marger v. McCoy Hillard & The purpose of affording plaintiffs in Parks, 488 S.E.2d 215, 224 (N.C. forma pauperis status is to “[provide] 1997) (providing elements of the equal access to federal courts.” Taylor claim). v. Grubbs, 930 F.3d 611, 614 (4th Cir. 2019). This purpose is plainly By claiming intentional infliction of disrupted when “judicial and private emotional distress, DeBerry must resources” are wasted on “baseless believe that Duke’s and Transitions’ lawsuits that paying litigants conduct was extreme and outrageous generally do not initiate because of (meaning that it “exceeds all bounds the cost of bringing suit.” Neitzke, 490 of decency tolerated by society”) and U.S. at 327. they intended to cause her severe emotional distress, or they were Here, DeBerry should not be recklessly indifferent to the likelihood permitted to pursue this action in they would cause her severe forma pauperis. The Court should emotional distress. See Turner v. dismiss this action without prejudice Thomas, 794 S.E.2d 439, 446 (N.C. as frivolous. See Nagy, 376 F.3d at 2016). But DeBerry alleges no such 258 (noting that a dismissal for facts. frivolity should be without prejudice).

DeBerry has failed to allege facts that D. DeBerry is warned that plausibly support any of the claims similar conduct in the future she has brought against Duke and will result in sanctions. Transitions in this action. This is just what she failed to do in state court As noted above, the Durham County where she “never provided any facts Superior Court previously entered a that would legally support any legally gatekeeping order enjoining DeBerry recognizable claims against any of from filing any matters related to or these defendants.” See Gatekeeping arising out of her father’s medical care Order ¶ 12. or estate without written certification by a licensed attorney. See supra at 4- Moreover, this action is part of a 5. The North Carolina Court of “common theme” the state court Appeals admonished her for her recognized in her meritless lawsuits filings there, as well. See id. at 5. there – a suit against “entities she seeks to hold accountable for what she Now she has brought the same or perceives to be the wrongful death similar grievances to federal court, and alleged ‘cover-up’ of the cause of having filed two actions in this district and seeking to pursue both in forma Miller § 1336.3 (explaining that “the pauperis. selection of the sanction [is] a highly contextual and fairly subjective Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil matter that must take account of Procedure clearly outlines the well- numerous factors, including a party’s known expectations of attorneys and capacity to pay and the nature of the pro se parties every time they file a conduct”). document with the court. The party “certifies that to the best of the “While pro se pleadings and filings person’s knowledge, information, and are granted a degree of indulgence not belief, formed after an inquiry extended to lawyers when a court reasonable under the circumstances,” considers the imposition of Rule 11 that she is not filing the matter for an sanctions, pro se litigants’ manifestly improper purpose, the claims “are frivolous arguments are still subject to warranted by existing law,” and Rule 11.” Harr v. North Carolina, No. evidence supports the factual 1:13CV673, 2014 WL 2212169, at *7 allegations. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). (M.D.N.C. May 28, 2014) (internal quotations and citation omitted), aff’d When an attorney or pro se party acts 588 F. App’x 285 (4th Cir. Dec. 22, contrary to the rule, courts have 2014). Pro se plaintiffs “are subject to authority to order the filer to show any and all appropriate sanctions for cause as to why her conduct does not their misconduct.’” Crisp v. Allied violate the rule and to sanction her for Interstate Collection Agency, 149 F. failing to do so. See Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. 3d 589, 596 (M.D.N.C. 2016) 11(c)(1), (3). The rule further (quoting Zaczek v. Fauquier Cnty., provides: 764 F. Supp. 1071, 1077 (E.D. Va. 1991)). A sanction imposed under this rule must be limited to what Although sanctions, like prefiling suffices to deter repetition of injunctions, that limit a pro se the conduct or comparable plaintiff’s access to courts “should be conduct by others similarly approached with particular caution situated. The sanction may and should remain very much the include nonmonetary exception to the general rule of free directives . . . [or] an order to access to the courts,” such a sanction pay a penalty into court. may be appropriate when the plaintiff “continuous[ly] abuse[s] the judicial Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(4). process by filing meritless and repetitive actions.” See Cromer v. “Nonmonetary sanctions vary wildly Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 390 F.3d depending on the facts.” Williams v. 812, 818 (4th Cir. 2004) (providing The Estates LLC, 663 F. Supp. 3d 466, factors that a court must weigh, 484 (4th Cir. 2023); see Wright & including the plaintiff’s history of litigation, the existence of a good faith basis in the lawsuit, the burden on the Ill. CONCLUSION court and defendants from the filings, and the sufficiency of other It is therefore ORDERED that sanctions); see also Peggs v. GMAC DeBerry’s application to proceed in Mtg, LLC, No. 1:09CV327, 2009 WL forma pauperis, Docket Entry 1, is 10680301, at *1-*3 (M.D.N.C. Nov, 13, GRANTED for the limited purpose 2009) (imposing a prefiling of allowing the Court to consider a injunction on a pro se plaintiff). recommendation of dismissal. It is RECOMMENDED that this case be DeBerry is on notice that she is dismissed under 28 U.S.C. subject to sanctions up to and § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as a frivolous including a prefiling injunction action. if she files another lawsuit in this district against these defendants arising out of or related to her father’s death and seeks to do so in forma pauperis. ie Gibson McFadden United States Magistrate Judge

September 3, 2026