Staples v. Wilson

• Docket Number: 3:23-cv-00377
• Decision Date: 01 September 2023
• Parties: DON JUAN STAPLES, BEY, Plaintiff, v. EVAN WILSON and HURRICANE POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia

1

DON JUAN STAPLES, BEY, Plaintiff,
v.
EVAN WILSON and HURRICANE POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants.

No. 3:23-cv-00377

United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Huntington Division

September 1, 2023

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Cheryl A. Eifert United States Judge

Plaintiff, Don Juan Staples,^[1] initiated this action against Defendants, Evan Wilson and the Hurricane Police Department, alleging violations of his constitutional rights arising out of a traffic stop and subsequent arrest. (ECF No. 1). Pending before the Court are Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. (ECF Nos. 8, 14). This case is assigned to the Honorable Robert C. Chambers, United States District Judge, and by standing order was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for submission of proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). For the following

2

reasons, the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, (ECF Nos. 8, 14), be GRANTED and this matter be DISMISSED, with prejudice, and removed from the docket of the court.

I. Relevant History

Staples filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Officer Evan Wilson and the Hurricane Police Department, alleging that he was unlawfully arrested and his phone illegally seized and searched in violation of the Fourth Amendment. (ECF No. 1). Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that Staples's claims were inadequately pled; that his claims are barred by a West Virginia statute which prevents recovery where a plaintiff's claims arise out of the plaintiff's commission of a felony, W.Va. Code § 55-7-13d(c); that Officer Wilson is entitled to qualified immunity; and that Staples failed to state a valid claim for Monell liability against the Hurricane Police Department. (ECF No. 8). Staples then moved for leave to amend his complaint, and the undersigned granted his motion, noting that Staples was entitled to amend his complaint without leave of court. (ECF Nos. 11, 13). Staples amended the Complaint primarily to correct the name of Officer Evan Wilson (whom he had previously misidentified as “Eric” Wilson) and to add some references to case law and to the United States Constitution. The Amended Complaint omits most of the factual allegations contained in the original, but does explicitly “maintain[] the counts and allegations against the same defendants from the original complaint.” (ECF Nos. 1, 12). Defendants, confused as to whether Staples's Amended Complaint qualified as a response to their Motion to Dismiss, filed a Reply, or, in the alternative, a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 14). Defendants contend that the same legal arguments in their first Motion to Dismiss also apply to the Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 14 at 2).

3

Although an Amended Complaint typically supersedes the original and renders it of no legal effect, Young v. City of Mount Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 572 (4th Cir. 2001), the undersigned did not warn Staples of that fact before granting his Motion for Leave to Amend. (See ECF No. 13). Staples's Amended Complaint is significantly less detailed than the original and contains almost no factual allegations; however, he clearly intended to adopt the original factual statements and claims in the Amended Complaint. (See ECF Nos. 1, 12). In light of his intent, and given that none of the allegations in the Amended Complaint substantially conflicts with those in the original, the undersigned will consider both complaints together. Owens v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., No. CV 1:20-476-BHH-SVH, 2020 WL 4588484, at *3 (D.S.C., Mar. 3, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, No. CV 1:20-476-BHH, 2020 WL 3396718 (D.S.C., June 18, 2020) (choosing to treat pro se plaintiff's original and amended complaints as one where plaintiff's amended complaint contained significantly less detail than the original); Smith v. Sunturst Mortg., Inc./SunTrust Bank, No. 8:19-CV-03274-PX, 2020 WL 4471516, at *1 (D. Md., Aug. 4, 2020) (treating pro se plaintiff's original and amended complaint as one complaint).

Staples alleges that, on December 21, 2021, he was traveling on I-64 East towards Charleston, when he was pulled over by Officer Evan Wilson of the Hurricane Police Department. (ECF No. 1 at 1, 12 at 2). Officer Wilson informed Staples that he pulled him over because he noticed Staples had swerved. (ECF No. 1 at 1). Staples responded that it may have looked like he swerved, but he was only trying to get out of the way of Officer Wilson's police cruiser, which had been behind Staples. (Id.). Officer Wilson asked Staples for his driver's license, and Staples handed him a “tribal identification card.” (Id. at 2). Officer Wilson went back to the police cruiser for fifteen minutes and

4

then returned to Staples, stating he smelled marijuana in Staples's vehicle, and asked Staples to step out. (Id.). Officer Wilson handcuffed Staples, while a second officer searched the vehicle and found a firearm which belonged to Staples's “consort,” whom is later identified as Staples's wife. (Id., ECF No. 12 at 2). Officer Wilson then placed Staples in the police cruiser and took him to the Hurricane Police Department. (ECF No. 1 at 2). Staples alleges that he received a phone call from his wife while at the Police Department, and Officer Wilson told her to bring Staples's Moorish National paperwork to the police station. (Id.). At the police station, Staples's wife spoke to Officer Wilson, who tried to coerce her into admitting that she had purchased the gun for Staples. (Id.). Although Officer Wilson was unsuccessful in getting a statement from Staples's wife, Staples was jailed overnight and posted bail the next morning. (Id.). When he tried to retrieve his cell phone from police custody, Officer Wilson “attempted to keep his mobile phone under false pretenses”, telling Staples that the phone was under investigation and would be returned to him when the investigation was completed. (ECF Nos. 1 at 2, 12 at 2). Staples told Officer Wilson that he used his phone for business, but Officer Wilson would not return the phone unless Staples unlocked it. (ECF Nos. 1 at 2, 12 at 2). After several minutes, Staples unlocked the phone, and Officer Wilson took the phone to another room “in an attempt to erase the voice recording of the initial traffic stop.” (ECF No. 1 at 2). When Officer Wilson was unable to erase the recording, he returned the phone. (Id.).

In the original Complaint, Staples states that he is entitled to relief under the Fourth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 18 U.S.C. § 242, and 18 U.S.C. § 245. (ECF No. 1 at 2). He states that Officer Wilson's conduct “caused [Staples] to suffer obstruction of travel, property search, trespass, theft, carjacking, and interference with commerce.”

5

(Id.). The Amended Complaint uses a convoluted citation system to explain the legal basis for his claims, quoting a factual allegation from earlier in the Amended Complaint and then listing abbreviated constitutional amendments.^[2] Staples includes a list of the alleged constitutional violations:

1. “pulled Plaintiff over without any suspicion of committing a crime”,

2. “mistook Plaintiff for someone else”,

3. “threatened to forcibly remove Plaintiff from automobile if Plaintiff did not comply”,

4. “detained Plaintiff with handcuffs and proceeded to search the automobile without Plaintiff's consent”,

5. “did not find any marijuana in the automobile but located a 38-caliber revolver registered to Plaintiff's wife”,

6. “kidnaps Plaintiff and jails overnight”

7. “attempted to keep Plaintiff's mobile phone under false pretenses”

8. “disinclined to return Plaintiff's mobile phone unless Plaintiff unlocked the device. Under duress and coercion, Plaintiff complied.

9. “took the mobile device behind closed doors and attempted to delete the recording of the traffic stop”

(ECF No. 12 at 3-5). Staples indicates that each violation implicates multiple constitutional protections, with the Fourth and Fifth Amendments being cited most frequently. (See id.).

Staples requests compensatory damages in the amount of $3,150,000. (Id. at 6). The amount is based on a “fee schedule” which Staples attaches to the Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 12-1). Staples provides a list of actions accruing damages, including “unauthorized citation”, “warning issued on paper”, “summons, court notices (without contract)”, “other related items, fees, or offers”, “fingerprinting”, “photographing”,

6

“taking/theft/deprivation of property”, “jailed, warehousing, incarceration”, “forced giving of fluids/samples”, and “autograph under threat, duress, or coercion.” (Id.).

Staples attaches several other documents to his Amended Complaint, including a UCC financing statement, (ECF No. 12-1 at 4-5); two certificates of incorporation for two West Virginia businesses held by Staples, (ECF No. 12-1 at 6-7); and a notarized affidavit by Staples, dated June 16, 2023, relating to Staples's supposed rights and obligations under “Commercial Law.” (ECF No. 12-2). None of these documents has any apparent relevance to the Amended Complaint, nor are they referenced in the Amended Complaint.

II. Standard of Review

A motion under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of the complaint. Bell Atlantic Corp v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). As the purpose of Rule 12(b)(6) is limited to evaluating the adequacy of the complaint, the court does not “resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses.” Presley v. City of Charlottesville, 464 F.3d 480, 483 (4th Cir. 2006). When considering the motion, the court must assume that the facts alleged in the complaint are true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Burbach Broad. Co. of Delaware v. Elkins Radio...