Frye v. Smithson, 1:24-cv-02387

Timothy Michael Frye, Jr., an inmate at Harford County Detention Center (HCDC), filed a pro se § 1983 suit alleging use of excessive force by Sgt. Brandon Smithson and other deputies.
Frye’s allegations stem from a January 10, 2024 incident where he claims officers used force after he requested to use the phone to contact his attorney.
Frye alleges Smithson denied his request, used derogatory language, threatened him with a taser, and along with other deputies, assaulted him causing multiple injuries.
Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing based on pleadings they construed as an amended complaint; Frye opposed and filed various ancillary motions.
The court clarified which pleadings are operative, determined Frye may file an amended complaint, and denied most pending motions without prejudice; only Frye's request to assure proper filing was partially granted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Frye’s pleadings are properly filed	Filed supplement to provide more facts, not substitute	Only supplement should count as amended complaint	Both pleadings are operative; plaintiff may amend
Sufficiency of excessive force allegations	Sufficient facts of excessive force, injury	Claims are deficient based on amended complaint	Court does not reach sufficiency yet
Motion for summary judgment	Sought judgment based on current pleadings	N/A	Denied as moot (amendment allowed)
Retaliation, preservation of evidence	Seeks preservation for anticipated claim	N/A	Denied without prejudice; can add to amendment
Counsel appointment	Requests appointed counsel	N/A	Denied without prejudice; may revisit later

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (requires liberal construction of pro se pleadings)
Suarez Corp. Indus. v. McGraw, 202 F.3d 676 (4th Cir. 2000) (outlines standard for First Amendment retaliation claims)
Constantine v. Rectors & Visitors of George Mason Univ., 411 F.3d 474 (4th Cir. 2005) (sets elements for First Amendment retaliation claim)