Sharpe v. State

• Docket Number: Civil Action 3:23-cv-175 (GROH)
• Decision Date: 20 October 2023
• Parties: GORDON A. SHARPE, Plaintiff, v. STATE, BERKLEY COUNTY MAGISTRATE COURT, WV DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES, TROOPER TA ELLIS BADGE #152, PROSECUTOR, EVERETT FRAZIER, SUSAN G. RINGER, JENNIFER PIERSON, and DARRELL SHULL, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of West Virginia

1

GORDON A. SHARPE, Plaintiff, v. STATE, BERKLEY COUNTY MAGISTRATE COURT, WV DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES, TROOPER TA ELLIS BADGE #152, PROSECUTOR, EVERETT FRAZIER, SUSAN G. RINGER, JENNIFER PIERSON, and DARRELL SHULL, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 3:23-cv-175 (GROH)

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia, Martinsburg

October 20, 2023

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Robert W. Trumble, United States Magistrate Judge

I.INTRODUCTION

Currently pending before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Gordon A Sharpe's Motion[ECF No. 6] for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis.^[1] Because Plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the undersigned must conduct a preliminary review to determine whether Plaintiff's Complaint[ECF No. 1] sets forth any viable claims.See28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).Because Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff's Complaint be DISMISSED, without prejudice and Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis and other outstanding Motions[ECF No. 7, 8, 9, 11] be DENIED as moot.

II.STANDARD OF REVIEW

When filing a lawsuit in federal court, the plaintiff is required to pay certain filing fees.The court has the authority to allow a case to proceed without the prepayment of fees “by a person who affirms by affidavit that he or she is unable to pay costs ....”L.R. Gen. P. 3.01.The plaintiff files this affidavit along with the request or motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.Id.The Supreme Court of the United States has explained that the purpose of the “federal in forma pauperisstatute . . . is designed to ensure that indigent litigants have meaningful access to the federal courts.”Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324(1989).

When a plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the court conducts a preliminary review of the lawsuit before allowing the case to proceed.See28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).This includes cases filed by non-prisoners.SeeMichau v. Charleston Cnty., S.C., 434 F.3d 725, 727(4th Cir.2006)(holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed the non-prisoner complaints under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)).The court must dismiss a case at any time if the court determines that the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.See28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).A case is often dismissed sua sponte before the defendant is notified of the case“so as to spare prospective defendants the inconvenience and expense of answering such complaints.”Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 324.Furthermore, if a “court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3);see alsoBrickwood Contractors, Inc. v. Datanet Eng'g, Inc., 369 F.3d 385, 390(4th Cir.2004)(stating that “questions of subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any point during the proceedings and may (or, more precisely, must) be raised sua sponte by the court”).

When reviewing pro se complaints, the Court must construe them liberally.SeeBeaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278(4th Cir.1985).Courts must read pro se allegations in a liberal fashion and hold those pleadings “to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520(1972).However, “the requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the court can ignore a clear failure . . . to allege facts which set forth a claim currently cognizable” in federal court.Gamache v. F.B.I., 2011 WL 4966281, at *1(D.S.C.Apr. 19, 2011).

As stated above, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) permits the court to dismiss a complaint that “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.”To state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure“require only ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,' in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'”Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555(2007)(quotingConley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47(1957)).Although a complaint need not assert “detailed factual allegations,” it must contain “more than labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.”Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555(citations omitted).To survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, the complaint must raise a right to relief that is more than speculative.Id.In other words, the complaint must contain enough facts to state a claim for relief that is “plausible” on its face, rather than merely “conceivable.”Id. at 570.Therefore, in order for a complaint to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, the plaintiff must “allege facts sufficient to state all the elements of [his or] her claim.”Bass v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 324 F.3d 761, 765(4th Cir.2003)(citingDickson v. Microsoft Corp., 309 F.3d 193, 213(4th Cir.2002)).

III.FACTS AS ALLEGED BY PLAINTIFF IN COMPLAINT

On November 24, 2022, Plaintiff Sharpe contends that Defendant Trooper Ellis, hereinafter “Ellis,” pulled him over and alleges that he came to a rolling stop at a stop sign.ECF No. 1-2at 3, ¶ 1.Apparently, Sharpe informed Ellis that traffic violations were not crimes.Id.According to the Plaintiff, Ellis disagreed stating, “an operators license is a privilege, you don't have a freedom, you have a privilege to operate a motor vehicle.By getting this license, you agree when you got this license, that you would obey traffic laws, and you did not because you violated 173c4 which is a failure to obey traffic control device.”Id.After conversing with Ellis, Plaintiff produced his driver's license.Id.Ellis subsequently asked for Sharpe's car insurance.Id.Sharpe did not provide the requested documentation.Id.

Ellis cited Plaintiff for violation of WV Code 17C-16-09, operation without certification or failure to produce certificate, and WV Code 17C-3-4, failure to obey traffic control device, (a stop sign).ECF No. 1-1at 10.On December 1, Sharpe sent a document with the heading “Attempt to Cure Re: Conditional Acceptance - Request for Proof of Claim Reference Citation (Account)No. SP2602022089908” to Ellis and another Defendant, the Berkeley County Magistrate Court, regarding his citation.Id. at 2.The document consisted of a list of twenty-three demands of “Proof of Claim[s]” to be met by the Magistrate Court.Id. at 2-4, ¶¶ 1-23.Plaintiff articulated in a following “caveat”section that if the Magistrate Court failed to respond adequately to his demands, the Court would be held in default.Id. at 4.Subsequently, Defendant Magistrate Darrell Shull, hereinafter “Magistrate Shull” issued a Notice to Appear for a hearing set for January 26, 2023, at the Berkeley County Magistrate Court.ECF No. 1-1at 10.On December 22, 2022, Sharpe mailed a notarized “Notice of Default,”^[2] stating that his affidavit went “unrebutted.”ECF No. 1-1at 7-8.

On January 26, 2023, Sharpe attended the hearing at the Magistrate Court.ECF No. 1-2at 4, ¶ 5.However, Ellis was not present, and Magistrate Shull ordered another hearing set for March 10, 2023.Id. at 4, ¶¶ 5, 6.On January 31, Magistrate Shull mailed Plaintiff another Notice to Appear for the rescheduled hearing.ECF No. 1-1 at 11.Sharpe then mailed a “Notice of Demand” to Magistrate Shull on February 24, 2023.ECF No. 1-2at 4, ¶ 7.Apparently, the Demand was not met with a signature of delivery on Certified Mail, and so Plaintiff re-mailed the document on March 8, 2023, to which a return receipt was received.ECF No. 1-2at 4, ¶ 8-11.Sharpe did not attend the March 10, 2023, hearing and he alleges “no one has responded to my affidavit or information submitted into evidence, the offices are either vacated or invaded as knowledge of facts were given.”ECF No. 1-2at 4, ¶ 12.

After the hearing, at which he was not present, Sharpe received a letter from the Tax and Revenue Claims Commission and Transportation Division of the Office of the Attorney General, suspending his driver's license.ECF No. 1-2 at 4, ¶ 15.Plaintiff filed a motion for a hearing with the Defendant West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles, hereinafter “DMV,”^[3] on April 12, 2023, regarding the issues of “Identity/Misidentification, Misrepresentation, and Failure to Respond to my paperwork, and Utter Counterfeit Obligations.”ECF No. 1-1at 12-21;see alsoECF No. 1-2at 4, ¶ 16.DefendantSusan Ringer, hereinafter “Ringer,” on behalf of the DMV filed its Motion to Deny Hearing Request on April 24, 2023, asserting that their administrative hearing board was not the proper forum for such a complaint.ECF No. 1-1at 23-24.The Hearing Examiner, DefendantJennifer Pierson, hereinafter “Pierson,” subsequently granted the Motion in a Final Order on May 11, 2023, denying Plaintiff's request for a hearing.Id. at 26-27.

On his Civil Cover Sheet accompanying his Complaint, Plaintiff marked the box indicating his claim involved Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations.ECF No. 1-2at 1.Later in his Complaint, Plaintiff asserts that the “Magistrate Court of Berkeley commit[ted] a malicious prosecution.”ECF No. 1-2at 4, ¶¶ 13, 16.Finally, Sharpe included as an attachment to his Complaint his request for a hearing at the DMV.ECF No. 1-1at 12-21.In his request, he writes that he is “willing to make claims on Magistrate, Prosecutor, and Trooper ETC Bonds for Oath of Office^[4] & Constitutional Violations.”ECF No. 1-1at 19.Liberally construed, these alleged Constitutional violations represent most of Plaintiff's claims.He has also...