Da’Jwan Quintaj Monroe v. Corporal Rodriguez, et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA DA’JWAN QUINTAJ MONROE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 1:25CV35 ) CORPORAL RODRIGUEZ, et al, ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE This case involves claims from pro se • He is “being harassed and plaintiff and pretrial detainee intimidated by . . . Cprl.

Da’Jwan Quintaj Monroe that he is Rodriguez”; being mistreated by prison staff, including one of the named • Rodriguez has communicated defendants, Corporal Rodriguez. See “threats [of] aggressive Docket Entry 2 at 12–13. The case is natures” to Monroe through now before the Court on a motion that other people at the jail; Monroe refers to as a “motion to be heard.”1 See Docket Entry 20-1. • Monroe’s “legal mail with critical and personal Monroe’s motion requests that the information such as addresses, Court “transfer [Monroe] to another phone numbers, etc. [has] gone county jail for safe keeping until [his] missing during a search criminal charges [are] brought to conducted with Cprl. Rodriguez court for sentencing pursuant to the himself with no answer as to N.C.G.S. 162-39.” See Docket Entry where [the] mail has gone”; at 1. Monroe alleges that: • Monroe has “filed numerous grievances on these situations Liberally construed, Monroe is seeking magistrate judge to hear and determine injunctive relief, thereby necessitating a any pretrial matter pending before the determination by a United States District court, except a motion for injunctive Court Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § relief[.]” Thus, this opinion is a 636(b)(1)(A) (“[A] judge may designate a recommendation only, not an order. that ha[ve] failed to be preliminary injunction effectuating answered or even looked into Monroe’s transfer, the motion would despite the fact of months still not succeed. Such a motion passing by, and incidents keep would need to show that Monroe is happening”; likely to succeed on the merits, will suffer irreparable harm in the absence • Monroe has “put in grievances of preliminary relief, that the balance asking for boundaries to be set . of equities tips in his favor, and that . . between me and [Rodriguez] an injunction is in the public interest. [which have] been ignored”; Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., and 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); accord S.C. Progressive Network Educ. Fund v. • Monroe has “no phone rights, Andino, 493 F. Supp. 3d 460, 465 commissary, or visitation (D.S.C. 2020). The Court could then privileges until late 2026 make findings of fact for the limited because of restrictions set by purpose of resolving the motion. E.g., the jail which hinders me from Doe v. Noem, 783 F. Supp. 3d 907, communicating with important 916 n.2 (W.D. Va. 2025) (making family and my kids, also talking findings of fact to resolve a with lawyers to handle my legal preliminary injunction); Planned issues more thoroughly and Parenthood S. Atl. v. Stein, 680 F. effectively.” Supp. 3d 595, 597 (M.D.N.C. 2023) (making findings of fact to resolve a Id. at 1–2. Temporary Restraining Order).

The Court should deny Monroe’s But Monroe’s motion makes no motion, for multiple reasons. arguments regarding likely success on the merits, the balance of equities, or First, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 162-39 does the public interest. And to the extent not give this Court the authority to that Monroe’s allegations can be order Monroe’s transfer. The statute construed as arguments for gives such authority only to “the irreversible harm, they are resident judge of the superior court or unpersuasive. Monroe’s allegations any judge holding superior court in about safety—e.g., that Rodriguez has the district or any district court communicated “threats” to Monroe, judge,” which presumably refers to Docket Entry 20 at 1—are too vague to North Carolina district court judges, support any finding in Monroe’s not federal district court judges. See favor.

N.C. Gen. Stat. 162-39(a), (b).

Further, Monroe’s allegations Second, even if the Court were to regarding missing legal materials, construe Monroe’s filing as a motion unanswered grievances, and for a temporary restraining order or a prohibited communication with family and lawyers are unsupported sent to the defendants, and by any evidence. The defendants have commentary from Monroe stating produced documentation showing that the defendants have “failed to that officers responded to Monroe’s comply to turn over ALL” of Monroe’s grievances and told him where he grievances, and that Monroe will could find his legal materials. See therefore “once again . . . be filing a Docket Entries 22-1, 22-2. The written discovery motion.” Docket defendants have also produced Entry 22 at 2; see also Docket Entry documentation showing that Monroe 20 at 3. But Monroe does not move to was placed on_ administrative compel production of his grievances, segregation for assaulting another and in any case, the defendants inmate, see Docket Entry 22-3, but, appear to have produced them all. See the defendants allege, he remains able Docket Entry 23-1 at 3. to “use email, write letters, or have attorney-client visitation,” Docket For the above reasons, IT IS Entry 21 at 4. HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the Court DISMISS Monroe’s Monroe’s motion and reply also motion to be heard, Docket Entry 20. contain copies of discovery requests J i Gibson McFadden United States Magistrate Judge March 2, 2026