Brown v. Lenoir Cnty. Bd. of Elections

• Decision Date: 31 March 2021
• Docket Number: No. 4:20-CV-62-FL,4:20-CV-62-FL
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina
• Parties: LENTON CREDELLE BROWN, Plaintiff, v. LENOIR COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF ELECTIONS, AMANDA EUBANKS, and DAQUAN (Last Name Unspecified), Defendants.

LENTON CREDELLE BROWN, Plaintiff, v. LENOIR COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF ELECTIONS,AMANDA EUBANKS, and DAQUAN (Last Name Unspecified), Defendants.

No. 4:20-CV-62-FL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN DIVISION

March 31, 2021

ORDER and MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION

This pro se case is before the court on the application [DE #1] of Lenton Credelle Brown ("Plaintiff") to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and for frivolity review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the matter having been referred to the undersigned by the Honorable Louise W. Flanagan, United States District Judge. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, and it is recommended that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed.

IFP MOTION

The standard for determining in forma pauperis status is whether "one cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for the costs . . . and still be able to provide himself and dependents with the necessities of life." Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). Based on the information contained in Plaintiff's financial affidavit, the court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated appropriate evidence of inability to pay the required court costs. Thus, Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is ALLOWED.

DISCUSSION

I. Background

Although not a model of clarity, Plaintiff's proposed complaint appears to assert a conspiracy to violate his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Chapter 163 of the North Carolina General Statutes¹ to run for public office by state and county boards of elections and other individuals.² Specifically, Plaintiff alleges the named defendants conspired to "rig" the results of the March 2020 Democratic Party primary election for North Carolina House of Representatives District 12.³ (Prop. Compl. [DE #1-1] at 2, 3, 8-12; Emergency Mot. to Stop Certification of Election Results ("Emergency Mot.") [DE #1-3] at 1, 5.) Plaintiff seeks to assert four claims for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 & 1983, and he invokes this court's jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1343.(Prop. Compl. at 1, 3, 9, 13.) Plaintiff seeks monetary, injunctive, and declaratory relief.⁴ (Id. at 2, 14.)

A. First Claim for Relief

In his first claim for relief, Plaintiff claims that the primary election results from March 3, 2020, for N.C. House District 12 "must be invalidated" because Virginia Cox-Daugherty, the winner of the Democratic Party primary election, did not pay her candidate filing fee by the December 20, 2019, noon deadline. (Prop. Compl. at 3.) In support, Plaintiff has attached a North Carolina Committee Disclosure Reporting Form 1210 ("Form CRO 1210") which discloses an individual contribution from Ms. Cox-Daugherty to her election committee on December 24, 2019, for the $140 candidate filing fee. (Id. at 4; Emergency Mot. at 2.)⁵ Plaintiff contends this shows Ms. Cox-Daugherty failed to pay her candidate filing fee on time, thereby rendering her ineligible to stand for election in the primary. (Prop. Compl. at 3; Emergency Mot. at 1.)

B. Second Claim for Relief

In his second claim for relief, Plaintiff alleges that the March 3, 2020, Democratic Party primary for N.C. House District 12 "was rigged to favor Candidate Virginia Cox-Daugherty over all other candidates in the race." (Prop. Compl. at 9.) In support, Plaintiff claims "[n]othing points to the N.C. House of Representatives District 12 [Democratic Party primary election] being rigged more than the results of Pitt County District 0601." (Id.; Emergency Mot. at 1.) Plaintiff then includes a chart showing none of the N.C. House District 12 Democratic Party candidates (Ms. Cox-Daugherty, Mr. Deonko Brewer, and Plaintiff) received any votes in Pitt County "District 0601."⁶ (Id. at 10.) Plaintiff notes that 1,450 ballots were cast in Pitt County Precinct 0601, but no N.C. House District 12 candidate received any votes. (Id.)

Plaintiff also cites further voting statistics from other Pitt County precincts for the N.C. House District 12 Democratic primary election at issue, including statistics showing the results by voting method for Precinct 0200A ("Ayden A") and Precinct0200B ("Ayden B").⁷ (Prop. Compl. at 10-11.) Plaintiff contends that it is "statistically improbable that one candidate would receive 138 votes in Ayden A and the other candidate would receive 138 votes in Ayden B." (Id. at 10.)

Lastly, in support of his claim that the Democratic primary election for N.C. House District 12 was rigged, Plaintiff alleges "irregularities": (a) an unidentified "eyewitness/minister" was turned away from voting at the Martin C. Freeman polling place in Kinston by white persons not affiliated with the local Board of Elections or the Parks & Recreation department;⁸ (b) power outages occurred on March 3, 2020, in Lenoir County, and the power company "had no records of the power being shut off to any of the voting precincts in Lenoir County;" (c) Ms. Cox-Daugherty received a $5,400 campaign contribution from a "billionaire who has offices in Salisbury, North Carolina;" (d) Cox-Daugherty may have received campaign support from supporters of Republican incumbent Chris Humphrey who believed Cox-Daugherty was the weakest of the candidates standing for election in the Democratic primary at issue; (e) Cox-Daugherty may become the subject of federal criminal prosecution; and (f) Cox-Daugherty held her campaign "watch party" at the Lenoir County Board of Elections despite having resigned from the local Board of Elections before theelection. (Prop. Compl. at 11.) Plaintiff contends these irregularities, in conjunction with the precinct voting statistics discussed above, show a "conspiracy to rig the election to get Virginia Cox-Daugherty elected with the ultimate goal to help Chris Stephen Humphrey win re-election." (Id.)

C. Third Claim for Relief

In his third claim for relief, which is similar in substance to the second claim insofar as Plaintiff alleges a conspiracy to rig the results of the Democratic Party primary election for N.C. House District 12, Plaintiff alleges the following facts, which he contends show a conspiracy to interfere with the election at issue: (a) eyewitness "testimony" from unnamed persons working with the Cox-Daugherty campaign that an Amanda Eubanks and Daquan (Last Name Unspecified) "commandeered" Cox-Daugherty's campaign; (b) Cox-Daugherty had a second bank account for campaign contributions that violated unspecified state and federal law; (c) Cox-Daugherty did not post campaign materials in the outlying areas of Lenoir County or anywhere in Pitt County and only posted a few campaign materials in the "main portion" of Kinston on the Saturday before the election; and (d) Cox-Daugherty did not respond to questions from a local newspaper, declined a radio interview, declined multiple candidate speaking forums, and "failed to articulate a platform."⁹ (Prop. Compl. at 12.)

D. Fourth Claim for Relief

In his fourth claim for relief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants

developed and maintained policies, procedures, customs, and/or practices exhibiting deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of black male candidates which were moving forces behind and proximately caused the violations of [Plaintiff]'s constitutional and federal rights as set forth herein . . . [and]

have developed and maintained long-standing, department-wide customs, policies, procedures, customs, practices, and/or failed to properly train and/or supervise its employees in a manner amounting to deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of Plaintiff.

(Prop. Compl. at 14.)

E. Emergency Motion for Relief and Miscellaneous Claims

In his emergency motion to stop the certification of the March 3, 2020, Democratic Party primary election for N.C. House District 12, Plaintiff repeats his first and second claims for relief. Plaintiff also raises the following issues which do not neatly fit within the claims raised in his proposed complaint: (a) "whether a candidate who prevailed in a rigged election can be certified in [v]iolation of Article 1, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution" and (b) whether the Lenoir County Board of Elections failed to "maintain the security of their voting machines and the integr[i]ty [of] our voting process." (Emergency Mot. at 1 (capitalization removed).)

II. Standard for Frivolity Review

Notwithstanding the prior determination that Plaintiff is entitled to in forma pauperis status, the court is required to dismiss all or part of an action found to be frivolous or malicious, which fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted, or which seeks money damages from a defendant immune from such recovery. 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(e)(2); Michau v. Charleston County, 434 F.3d 725, 728 (4th Cir. 2006). A case is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Pro se complaints are entitled to a more liberal treatment than pleadings drafted by lawyers. See White v. White, 886 F.2d 721, 722-23 (4th Cir. 1989). However, the court is not required to accept a pro se plaintiff's contentions as true. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). The court is permitted to "pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless." Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327 (explaining the "separate function" of frivolity review). In making the "inherently elastic" frivolity determination, Nagy v. FMC Butner, 376 F.3d 252, 256-57 (4th Cir. 2004), the court may "apply common sense," Nasim v. Warden., Md. House of Correction, 64 F.3d 951, 954 (4th Cir. 1995).

Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a complaint to give a "short plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ....