547 F. App'x 209
4th Cir.2013Background
- Hodge, pro se, appeals the district court's dismissal of his §1983 action under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim.
- The district court dismissed Hodge's claim against Defendant Christopher Esnes for racial profiling in connection with a traffic stop.
- The Fourth Circuit reviews de novo the district court's failure-to-state-a-claim dismissal, and pro se pleadings are liberally construed, though claims must be plausible.
- A §1983 Equal Protection claim requires showing intentional discrimination and different treatment of similarly situated individuals.
- Hodge's complaint did not allege facts showing racial discriminatory intent in Esnes' stop, citation for no valid change-of-address card, or warning for yield-right-of-way, so the claim was not plausible, and the district court's dismissal was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hodge states a plausible Equal Protection claim | Hodge alleges racial profiling by Esnes. | No factual basis showing intentional discrimination by Esnes. | No plausible Equal Protection claim; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Slade v. Hampton Rds. Reg’l Jail, 407 F.3d 243 (4th Cir. 2005) (de novo review for failure-to-state-a-claim; plausibility standard applies)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186 (4th Cir. 2009) (plausibility standard requires more than a sheer possibility)
- Morrison v. Garraghty, 239 F.3d 648 (4th Cir. 2001) (equal protection requires showing intentional discrimination among similarly situated people)
- Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147 (4th Cir. 1978) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings)