Majeed v. North Carolina, No. 5:07-CV-184-D.

• Court: United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Eastern District of North Carolina
• Writing for the Court: James C. Dever, Iii
• Citation: 520 F.Supp.2d 720
• Parties: Burnie MAJEED, Sr., Burnie Majeed, Jr., and Kenya Majeed, Plaintiffs, v. The State of NORTH CAROLINA, North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts, University of North Carolina, and the Episcopal Diocese of North Carolina, Defendants.
• Decision Date: 04 October 2007
• Docket Number: No. 5:07-CV-184-D.

520 F.Supp.2d 720 Burnie MAJEED, Sr., Burnie Majeed, Jr., and Kenya Majeed, Plaintiffs,
v.
The State of NORTH CAROLINA, North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts, University of North Carolina, and the Episcopal Diocese of North Carolina, Defendants. No. 5:07-CV-184-D. United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division. October 4, 2007.

Page 721

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Page 722

Burnie Majeed, Sr., Mullica Hill, NJ, Pro se.

Burnie Majeed, Jr., Mullica Hill, NJ, Pro se.

Kenya Majeed, Mullica Hill, NJ, Pro se.

Thomas J. Ziko, N.C. Department of Justice, Raleigh, NC, for State of North Carolina, NC Administration Office of the Court, and University of North Carolina.

John L. Sarratt, Kennedy, Covington, Lobdell & Hickman, Raleigh, NC, for Protestant Episcopal Diocese of North Carolina.

ORDER

JAMES C. DEVER, III, District Judge.

Burnie Majeed, Sr., Burnie Majeed, Jr., and Kenya Majeed ("plaintiffs") filed this action against the State of North Carolina, the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts, the University of North Carolina, (collectively the "State of North Carolina"), and the Episcopal Diocese of North Carolina (the "North Carolina Diocese"). The State of North Carolina moves to dismiss plaintiffs' action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and (2) and moves to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The North Carolina Diocese moves to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment. As explained below, the State of North Carolina's motion to dismiss the complaint is granted; the North Carolina Diocese's motion to dismiss the complaint is granted; and the plaintiffs' motions for declaratory judgment are denied.

I.

Plaintiffs allege that they are descendants of Francis J. Smith (a slave-owner) and Harriet Smith (a Cherokee Indian slave). In 1877, Francis J. Smith's estate passed through intestate succession to his sister Mary R. Smith. In her will administered upon her death in 1885, Mary R. Smith devised portions of her estate to the University of North Carolina and the North Carolina Diocese. Plaintiffs allege that the transfers violated "Federal Law and the United States Constitution." Compl. 2-3. Plaintiffs seek return of the tracts of land transferred to the University of North Carolina and the North Carolina Diocese, a declaration recognizing that plaintiffs and their family never relinquished their status as descendants of Francis J. Smith, and damages suffered by family members over the 120-year period. Id. at 7.

Plaintiffs filed this action on January 31, 2007, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. On April 25, 2007, the District Court for the District of Columbia transferred the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

II.

In analyzing a motion to dismiss a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted," a court must determine whether the complaint is sufficient "under the facts alleged and under any facts that could be proved in support of the complaint." E. Shore Mkts., Inc. v. J.D. Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 213 F.3d 175, 180 (4th Cir.2000). A court "assume[s] the truth of all facts alleged in the complaint and the existence of any fact that can be proved, consistent with the complaint's allegations." Id. A court need "not accept the legal conclusions drawn from the facts." Id. "Similarly, la court]

Page 723

need not accept as true unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments." Id.; see Kloth v. Microsoft, 444 F.3d 312, 319 (4th Cir.2006).

Liberally construed, plaintiffs' claim appears to be rooted in a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or, more specifically, a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 provides a civil remedy for "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws" of the United States when that deprivation takes place "under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory." 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Both the Fourteenth Amendment and section 1983 require "state action" on the part of the defendant. See, e.g., Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., Inc., 457 U.S. 922, 924, 102 S.Ct. 2744, 73 L.Ed.2d 482 (1982) (addressing the relationship between section 1983 requirement of action under color of state law and the Fourteenth Amendment requirement of state action); Dowe v. Total Action Against Poverty in Roanoke Valley, 145 F.3d 653, 658 (4th Cir.1998). The plaintiffs must allege that they were injured by conduct "fairly attributable to the state" which caused "the deprivation of a federal right." See Lugar, 457...