Shreve v. Stephenson
5:22-cv-00163-BO
E.D.N.C.Mar 2, 2023Background
- Pro se plaintiff Kimberly Shreve filed suit on April 26, 2022, alleging multiple prior arrests, involuntary commitments, and mistreatment by Raleigh police officers and Wake County jail staff dating back to 1999.
- Claims included excessive force, false arrest, wrongful detainment, planting evidence, false statements, assault, negligence, and requests for statutory and actual damages (including under the Privacy Act and Copyright Act).
- Many named defendants were individual Raleigh police officers; one named defendant was the Wake County Public Safety Department.
- Shreve is a frequent litigant in the district with numerous prior cases dismissed; a prefiling injunction was entered against her in December 2022.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, lack of personal jurisdiction/improper service, and because the Wake County Public Safety Department is not a suable entity; defendants also invoked res judicata as to some claims.
- The court dismissed the complaint in full as frivolous and for failure to state plausible claims, dismissed Wake County Public Safety Department as not suable, found service defective, and denied pending sanctions and continuance motions as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capacity to be sued: Is "Wake County Public Safety Department" a suable entity? | Shreve named the department as a defendant. | Wake County PSD argued it is not an entity authorized by North Carolina law to be sued. | Dismissed: entity not subject to suit under state law; Wake County PSD dismissed. |
| Service of process: Was service proper? | Shreve filed proofs stating she "mailed a copy" and signed as server. | Defendants argued service was improper because a non-party adult must serve; Shreve as plaintiff cannot serve. | Dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction as service was ineffective. |
| Sufficiency of pleadings: Do allegations state plausible constitutional/tort claims against RPOs? | Shreve alleged lists of arrests, mistreatment, and a catalogue of claims (excessive force, false arrest, etc.). | RPOs argued the complaint lacks specific factual allegations tying each officer to actionable conduct and is conclusory/frivolous. | Dismissed for failure to state a claim: allegations are speculative, conclusory, and in parts fanciful. |
| Monell/custom requirement: Can Shreve sue the entity on Fourteenth Amendment claims? | Shreve asserted constitutional harms by jail/PS officers. | Defendants noted Monell requires pleading of an official policy or custom causing the injury. | Dismissed: Shreve made no plausible allegations of official policy/custom; Monell claim fails. |
| Preclusion/frivolous litigation: Are claims barred by res judicata or frivolous filing rules? | Shreve reasserted similar claims from prior lawsuits. | Defendants invoked res judicata and pointed to prior dismissals and the prefiling injunction. | Court treated many claims as barred or frivolous and dismissed; sanctions/continuance denied as moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (1986) (Rule 12(b)(6) tests legal sufficiency of a complaint)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state a plausible claim)
- Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires an official policy or custom)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards)
- Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. ConsumerAffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250 (4th Cir. 2009) (plausibility standard discussion)
- Philips v. Pitt County Mem. Hosp., 572 F.3d 176 (4th Cir. 2009) (courts need not accept unwarranted inferences or legal conclusions)
- Combs v. Bakker, 886 F.2d 673 (4th Cir. 1989) (prima facie burden for jurisdictional facts when challenged)
- Koehler v. Dodwell, 152 F.3d 304 (4th Cir. 1998) (failure of proper service deprives court of personal jurisdiction)
- McLean v. United States, 566 F.3d 391 (4th Cir. 2009) (frivolous or fanciful allegations may be dismissed)
- Coleman v. Peyton, 340 F.2d 603 (4th Cir. 1965) (distinguishes failure to plead with technical precision from wholly deficient claims)