Jordan v. Newman

• Decision Date: 02 August 2021
• Docket Number: CIVIL 3:19-cv-00212-MR
• Parties: ZAVIAN JORDAN, Plaintiff, v. CHRIS NEWMAN, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina

ZAVIAN JORDAN, Plaintiff,
v.
CHRIS NEWMAN, et al., Defendants.

CIVIL No. 3:19-cv-00212-MR

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division

August 2, 2021

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER

Martin Reidinger, Chief United States District Judge.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants' Superseding Joint Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 30] and the incarcerated Plaintiff's pro se Motion to Strike Reply in Support of Superseding Joint Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 34].

I. BACKGROUND

A. Federal Criminal Proceedings

In 2016, the Plaintiff, Zavian Jordan, was the subject of a weeks-long investigation by the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”). United States v. Jordan, 952 F.3d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S.Ct. 1051, 208 L.Ed.2d 521 (2021); Criminal Case No. 3:16-cr-00145-RJC (“CR”), Doc. 280].^[1] Based on a co-conspirator's statements regarding the Plaintiff and the contents of a phone call between the co-conspirator and the Plaintiff, Agency Task Force Officer Clint Bridges (hereinafter “Officer Bridges”) and other officers obtained a warrant to track the location of Plaintiff's phone, and later, a second warrant to place a location-tracking device on Plaintiff's truck. Jordan, 952 F.3d at 163. Thereafter, based on surveillance conducted by federal agents, DEA Special Agent James Billings (hereinafter “Agent Billings”) decided to conduct an investigatory stop of the Plaintiff. [Id.]. Agent Billings reached out to Detective Christopher Newman of the Mecklenburg Police Department (hereinafter “Detective Newman”), who had been assisting the DEA in its operation, and asked him to conduct a routine traffic stop. Id.

On May 11, 2016, Detective Newman conducted a traffic stop after observing the Plaintiff turning through a red light without stopping. [Id. at 163164]. After a subsequent dog alert, the Plaintiff admitted to possession of cocaine and Detective Newman's search of the Plaintiff and vehicle resulted in the seizure of approximately 12 grams of cocaine, a handgun, six phones, and $28, 000.00 in cash. [Id. at 164]. The Plaintiff was arrested, advised of his rights, and agreed to talk to police, admitting his involvement in cocaine trafficking and giving a detailed statement. [Id.]. After obtaining warrants, police officers conducted several searches, ultimately resulting in the recovery of 275 grams of heroin, 750 grams of cocaine, marijuana, digital scales, drug-packing materials, firearms and ammunition, and $24, 000.00 in cash. [Id.].

The Plaintiff was ultimately indicted by a federal grand jury on six counts, including drug-trafficking and firearms-related offenses. [Criminal Case No. 3:16-cr-00145-RJC (“CR”), Doc. 68]. While the criminal case was pending, the Plaintiff filed a motion to suppress the seized evidence and his incriminatory statements. [CR Doc. 28 (sealed)]. Specifically, the motion to suppress raised issues regarding the actions of Detective Newman and Officer Bridges as violating the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. [See Doc. 28 (sealed)]. Upon hearing the Plaintiff's motion to suppress, the Court^[2] rejected the Plaintiff's arguments and denied the motion to suppress. [CR Doc. 75 Suppression Transcr. at 111 - 115]. Following a three-day jury trial, a jury convicted the Plaintiff on all counts. [CR Doc. 130]. On October 23, 2017, the Court sentenced the Plaintiff to be imprisoned for a total a term of four-hundred and twenty (420) months. [See CR Minute Entry dated 10/23/2017; CR Doc. 217]. The Plaintiff appealed. [CR Doc. 213].

B. Civil Actions

On May 3, 2019, while the Plaintiff's criminal appeal was pending, the Plaintiff filed this civil rights action addressing the circumstances of his arrest and subsequent criminal proceedings. [Doc. 1]. The Complaint passed initial review against Defendants Detective Newman and Officer Bridges on Fourth Amendment and conspiracy claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [Doc. 3]. On February 18, 2020, Defendants filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim arguing, inter alia, that the Plaintiff's claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). [Doc. 15]. The same day, the Defendants also filed a Joint Motion to Stay, arguing that the matter should be held in abeyance pending resolution of the Plaintiff's direct appeal in the criminal case, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 17-4751 (“APP”). [Doc. 16]. On February 19, 2020, the Court issued an Order staying the case and instructing the Defendants to file a notice when the criminal appeal became final. [Doc. 17]. The Court also notified Plaintiff in accordance with Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), of his right to respond to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and granted him 30 days following the filing of Defendants' notice in which to do so. [Doc. 18].

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the Plaintiff's criminal judgment on March 3, 2020, and denied rehearing and rehearing en banc on March 31, 2020. United States v. Jordan, 952 F.3d 160 (4th Cir. 2020); [APP Doc. 96]. On January 11, 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States denied the Petition for writ of certiorari in the Plaintiff's criminal case. United States v. Jordan, 952 F.3d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S.Ct. 1051, 208 L.Ed.2d 521 (2021). On February 4, 2021, the Defendants filed a Joint Notice regarding the denial of certiorari in Plaintiff's criminal case. [Doc. 28].

On February 10, 2021, the Court, in the interest of simplifying these pro se proceedings, dismissed as moot the Defendants' original motion to dismiss and allowed the Defendants to file a Superseding Motion to Dismiss within fourteen days. [Doc. 29]. The Court also notified the Plaintiff in accordance with Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), of his right to respond to the Defendants' Superseding Motion to Dismiss and granted him 30 days following the filing of the Defendants' Superseding Motion to Dismiss in which to do so. [Id.].

On February 24, 2021, Defendants filed the instant Superseding Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [Doc. 30]. Therein, the Defendants argue, inter alia, that the Plaintiff's claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). The Court again notified the Plaintiff of the opportunity to respond to Defendants' Superseding Motion and cautioned him that the failure to do so may result in the Defendants being granted the relief that they seek by way of the Superseding Motion to Dismiss. [Doc. 31]. The Plaintiff filed a Response [Doc. 32] and the Defendants filed a Reply [Doc. 33].^[3]

The matter is now ripe for adjudication.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A motion to dismiss based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) addresses whether the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the dispute. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). A challenge to the Court's subjectmatter jurisdiction under 12(b)(1) may be raised as either a facial or factual attack. See Hutton v. Nat'l Bd. of Exam'rs in Optometry, Inc., 892 F.3d 613, 621 n.7 (4^th Cir. 2018). In a facial attack, where a defendant contends that a complaint fails to allege facts upon which the Court can base subjectmatter jurisdiction, the Court must assume as true the factual allegations in the complaint. Adams v. Bain, 697 F.2d 1213, 1219 (4^th Cir. 1982). If, however, the defendant makes a factual attack by contending that the jurisdictional allegations contained in the complaint are false, the Court may go beyond the allegations of the complaint in order to determine if the facts support the Court's exercise of jurisdiction over the dispute. Id. The burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction on a motion to dismiss rests with the party asserting jurisdiction, in this case the Plaintiff. Id.; Williams v. United States, 50 F.3d 299, 304 (4^th Cir. 1995).

In a motion made pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the...