{ "id": 4156378, "name": "JAMES EDWARD GRAY, Plaintiff v. BILLY BRYANT, CAPTAIN LAKE, and LIEUTENANT WHITAKER, Defendants", "name_abbreviation": "Gray v. Bryant", "decision_date": "2008-04-01", "docket_number": "No. COA07-840", "first_page": "527", "last_page": "529", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "189 N.C. App. 527" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "833 F.2d 47", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 10543123 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "49", "parenthetical": "plaintiff-prisoners' allegations that defendant-prison failed to comply with a court order to remedy living conditions in violation of Eighth Amendment constituted a cause of action" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/833/0047-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1-110", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "40 F. Supp. 2d 534", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp. 2d", "case_ids": [ 11623070 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "536" }, { "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp-2d/40/0534-01" ] }, { "cite": "594 S.E.2d 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2004, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "358 N.C. 160", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2986939 ], "year": 2004, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/358/0160-01" ] }, { "cite": "562 S.E.2d 82", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "94", "parenthetical": "alteration in original" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "149 N.C. App. 672", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9131361 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "689", "parenthetical": "alteration in original" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/149/0672-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 291, "char_count": 4394, "ocr_confidence": 0.752, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07, "percentile": 0.7515063619539208 }, "sha256": "4b31922c307ba381a0e7e4b2f03bffa91aa8cdf65b405feb0803b73b9c4682bc", "simhash": "1:88ea5e4ab44ab2e0", "word_count": 695 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:47:52.494477+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges BRYANT and JACKSON concur." ], "parties": [ "JAMES EDWARD GRAY, Plaintiff v. BILLY BRYANT, CAPTAIN LAKE, and LIEUTENANT WHITAKER, Defendants" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "HUNTER, Judge.\nJames Edward Gray (\u201cplaintiff\u201d) is currently an inmate at the Pamlico Correctional Institution in Bayboro, North Carolina. Plaintiff filed a civil complaint, which was verified, against Billy Bryant, Sheriff of Lee County, Captain Lake, and Lieutenant Whitaker (\u201cdefendants\u201d), alleging that they had failed to comply with a court order. Because plaintiff is an inmate filing a pro se complaint as an indigent informa pauperis, the trial court was required to determine \u201cwhether the complaint is frivolous.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 l-110(b) (2007). The trial court made a determination the complaint was frivolous and exercised its discretion to dismiss the action. Plaintiff then received permission from the trial court to appeal its order. After careful consideration, we reverse the ruling of the trial court.\nPlaintiff alleges that defendants failed to follow a court order that required him to be committed to Dorothea Dix Hospital for examination and treatment. Plaintiff also alleges that defendants were in possession of such order and willfully, knowingly, and purposefully disregarded that order. According to plaintiff, defendant Whitaker wrote a letter to plaintiff, stating that he and the other defendants did not feel as though they needed to comply with the court order.\nDefendant presents one issue for this Court\u2019s review: Whether the trial court erred in dismissing his complaint as frivolous. A claim \u201cis frivolous if \u2018a proponent can present no rational argument based upon the evidence or law in support of [it].\u2019 \u201d Rhyne v. K-Mart Corp., 149 N.C. App. 672, 689, 562 S.E.2d 82, 94 (2002) (alteration in original) (quoting Black\u2019s Law Dictionary 668 (6th ed. 1990)), affirmed, 358 N.C. 160, 594 S.E.2d 1 (2004). In determining whether a complaint is frivolous, the standard is not the same as in a ruling on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6). Richards v. State\u2019s Attorneys Office, 40 F. Supp. 2d 534, 536 (D. Vt. 1999). Instead, we \u201c \u2018look with a far more forgiving eye\u2019 in examining whether a claim rests on a meritless legal theory.\u201d Id. (citation omitted). We review such dismissals for abuse of discretion. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1-110.\nPlaintiff, by alleging that defendants failed to follow a court order or took actions detrimental to his health, could have a cause of action if his allegations were proven. See, e.g., Gillespie v. Crawford, 833 F.2d 47, 49 (5th Cir. 1987) (plaintiff-prisoners\u2019 allegations that defendant-prison failed to comply with a court order to remedy living conditions in violation of Eighth Amendment constituted a cause of action). Although plaintiff has failed to support these assertions with either defendant Whitaker\u2019s letter or the court order, a finding that the case was frivolous for failure to provide supporting documents would be inappropriate at this preliminary stage. See id. We therefore reverse the trial court\u2019s order which found plaintiff\u2019s complaint to be frivolous.\nReversed and remanded.\nJudges BRYANT and JACKSON concur.\n. Plaintiff has not included the first name of defendants Lake and Whitaker.", "type": "majority", "author": "HUNTER, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "James Edward Gray, plaintiff-appellant, pro se.", "No brief for defendant-appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "JAMES EDWARD GRAY, Plaintiff v. BILLY BRYANT, CAPTAIN LAKE, and LIEUTENANT WHITAKER, Defendants\nNo. COA07-840\n(Filed 1 April 2008)\nPrisons and Prisoners\u2014 inmate\u2019s pro se complaint alleging failure to follow court order \u2014 abuse of discretion standard\nThe trial court abused its discretion by dismissing plaintiff inmate\u2019s pro se complaint as frivolous when it alleged defendants failed to follow a court order that required him to be committed to Dorothea Dix Hospital for examination and treatment because: (1) plaintiff, by alleging that defendants failed to follow a court order or took actions detrimental to his health, could have a cause of action if his allegations were proven; and (2) although plaintiff failed to support the allegations with either defendant Whitaker\u2019s letter to plaintiff stating he and the other defendants did not feel as thought they needed to comply with the court order, or the court order itself, a finding that the case was frivolous for failure to provide supporting documents was inappropriate at this preliminary stage. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 l-110(b).\nAppeal by plaintiff from an order entered 9 March 2007 by Judge Franklin F. Lanier in Lee County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 6 February 2008.\nJames Edward Gray, plaintiff-appellant, pro se.\nNo brief for defendant-appellees." }, "file_name": "0527-01", "first_page_order": 559, "last_page_order": 561 }