IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CIVIL COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c)AND 42 U.S.C. § 1983
- Outlaw Livin'
- Mar 7
- 25 min read
Updated: Mar 11
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CIVIL COMPLAINT
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c)
AND 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ROBERT BRYANT STARNES,
Plaintiff,
v.
J. TRAVIS ALLEN, Sheriff of Rowan County, in his individual and official capacities;
BRANDY COOK, District Attorney, Prosecutorial District 19, in her individual and official capacities;
BETH S. DIXON, Chief District Court Judge, Judicial District19, in her individual capacity;
CHRISTOPHER SEASE, District Court Judge, Judicial District19, in his individual capacity;
RICHARD TODD WYRICK, Clerk of Superior Court, Rowan County, in his individual and official capacities;
GREG EDDS, Chairman, Rowan County Board of Commissioners, in his individual and official capacities;
JIM GREENE, Vice Chairman, Rowan County Board of Commissioners, in his individual and official capacities;
JUDY KLUSMAN, Commissioner, Rowan County Board of Commissioners, in her individual and official capacities;
MIKE CASKEY, Commissioner, Rowan County Board of Commissioners, in his individual and official capacities;
CRAIG PIERCE, Commissioner, Rowan County Board of Commissioners, in his individual and official capacities;
ROWAN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS;
ROWAN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA;
JOHN AND JANE DOES 1–10, unknown deputies, officers, and employees whose identities are ascertainable through discovery;
Defendants.
I. NATURE OF THE ACTION
This is a civil action under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) arising from a documented pattern of racketeering activity by an association-in-fact of Rowan County, North Carolina officials who have systematically used the instruments of public office to obstruct accountability, suppress evidence of constitutional violations, and deprive citizens of rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Every fact alleged herein is sourced to enacted statute, published public record, or the defendants' own statements. The reader is invited to verify all of it.
This action also arises under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of rights secured by the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and under N.C.G.S. § 58-76-5 for breach of the conditions of official bonds held by named defendants.
Plaintiff Robert Bryant Starnes is a citizen, taxpayer, and property owner of Rowan County, North Carolina, residing at a address within Rowan County. He brings this action not as a matter of grievance, but as a matter of record. The enterprise described herein did not require a conspiracy. It required only that each officer do what officers do when institutions protect themselves: deflect, delay, and deny. The record documents each act. The statutes identify each violation. The oaths establish each breach.
No allegation in this complaint asks the Court to infer what is not in the record. The record is sufficient.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) (civil RICO), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). All defendants reside or operate in Rowan County, North Carolina, within the Middle District of North Carolina. All acts and omissions giving rise to this complaint occurred within this district.
III. THE ENTERPRISE
The enterprise is not alleged. It is documented.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4) and United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576 (1981), an enterprise includes any group of individuals associated in fact, whether or not a legal entity. The enterprise need not have a formal structure, rules of membership, or organizational hierarchy. It need only be a group of persons associated together for a common purpose of engaging in a course of conduct.
The enterprise here is an association-in-fact consisting of the named defendants and their agents, associated through their shared offices, shared courthouse, shared oath of office, and shared institutional interest in the preservation of Rowan County's governmental apparatus from accountability.
The enterprise's common purpose is documented in the conduct of each member: the consistent exercise of official power in the direction of institutional protection and away from citizen accountability, across a documented period spanning at least 2017 through the date of this filing.
Each member's role within the enterprise is defined by their office. Their office defines their duty. Their documented departure from that duty — in a consistent direction, across a documented pattern — constitutes participation in the conduct of the enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).
IV. THE PATTERN OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY
The following is not a summary of allegations. It is a chronological record of documented facts, each sourced to enacted statute, published public record, or the statements of named defendants. The reader is invited to verify each entry.
2017
The Raleigh News & Observer published a series documenting systemic failures in North Carolina county jails, including supervision failures and inmate deaths. The Rowan County Detention Center was among facilities examined.
2017–2020
Four persons died in the Rowan County Detention Center. State inspectors cited the facility for missing supervision rounds and overcrowding during inspections conducted during this period. Death investigations found the same failures at play in each death. Plans of correction were submitted, accepted, and not implemented. The facility failed subsequent inspections for the same deficiencies. Each bonded defendant, by virtue of their office and the public record, had access to this documented pattern of failure throughout this period. Their bonds required faithful performance of the duties that would have addressed it.
Source: NC Health News, January 13, 2023; Disability Rights NC report, "A Slap on the Wrist and a Rubber Stamp."
April 21, 2021
Defendant Cook, as District Attorney of Prosecutorial District 19, declined to prosecute Salisbury Police Department Officer James Hampton for the documented, recorded abuse of K-9 Officer Zuul. Video documented Hampton lifting the dog off the ground by the leash, swinging him, slamming him into the side of a patrol vehicle, and striking the dog's head. A voice on the video is audibly heard stating, "We're good, no witnesses." Others on the video are heard discussing turning off cameras. The third-party investigation by US ISS Agency concluded Hampton violated police procedure. Defendant Cook's office issued a press release on April 21, 2021 characterizing Hampton's conduct as a "bad act" that did not constitute a crime, and declined prosecution. Hampton resigned.
Source: Rowan County District Attorney press release, April 21, 2021; WBTV, April 21, 2021; The Grio, April 22, 2021.
June 2018 – October 2019 — Witt Alexander
Witt Darnell Alexander was arrested June 24, 2018, and charged with the murders of Mariah Nicole Turner and her unborn child. At the time of his arrest, Alexander provided investigators with a complete alibi: he was at the Epicentre in uptown Charlotte at the time of the killing. Time-stamped surveillance footage from the Epicentre corroborated his alibi. According to Alexander's account, that video evidence was in the possession of investigators by July 1, 2018 — seven days after his arrest. Cook's office held Alexander for 444 days — in the Rowan County Jail and Bertie Correctional Institution — before dismissing the charges in September 2019. Cook did not respond to WSOC's request for comment on why she held Alexander after the video evidence was available, or why she dismissed the charges when she did. Alexander stated publicly that his attorney received the dismissal in the mail with no explanation. Cook took no public responsibility for the 444-day detention. No disciplinary action against Cook or her office was documented. This predicate establishes Cook's documented pattern of conduct involving the detention of individuals beyond the point at which exculpatory evidence was available.
Source: WSOC TV, November 22, 2019; Salisbury Post, October 3, 2019; QC News, October 4, 2019.
January 2, 2023
Defendants Allen, Cook, Sease, Dixon, and Wyrick were sworn into office or re-sworn, each taking an oath to faithfully perform the duties of their respective offices under the Constitution and laws of the United States and the State of North Carolina. Commissioners Edds, Greene, Klusman, Caskey, and Pierce held office under oaths previously sworn. All oaths are on file with the Rowan County Clerk of Superior Court. From this date, each officer's bond was in force and each officer's fiduciary obligation to the people of Rowan County was operative.
April 7, 2024
The Salisbury Post published an article raising questions about juvenile justice in Rowan County, citing Salisbury Police Department officers who claimed multiple criminal interactions with juveniles they had not reported to juvenile authorities.
April 16, 2024 — The Constructive Knowledge Event
Defendant Dixon published an op-ed in the Salisbury Post publicly acknowledging that Salisbury Police Department officers had "never even reported" criminal interactions with juveniles to juvenile authorities, and that officers "have yet to follow up with juvenile justice and request complaints." Defendant Dixon's byline identified her as Chief District Court Judge of Judicial District 19, Rowan County.
This publication is the constructive knowledge event for all bonded defendants. From April 16, 2024 forward, each bonded defendant had actual or constructive knowledge — through the county's own newspaper of record — that the mandatory juvenile reporting pipeline was broken, that Salisbury Police Department officers were failing their statutory reporting obligations, and that the Chief District Court Judge had publicly documented this failure without referral to any investigative authority.
Each bonded defendant's statutory duties as a fiduciary of the public trust, secured by an official bond requiring faithful performance under N.C.G.S. § 58-72-5 and examined and approved by the Board of Commissioners under § 58-72-20, imposed an affirmative obligation to act from this date forward. The statutory duty is not ambiguous. The knowledge is documented. The inaction is the breach.
Defendant Dixon: Dixon is Chief District Court Judge of Judicial District19. In that administrative capacity she holds supervisory responsibility for the operation of the juvenile docket under N.C.G.S. § 7A-146. On April 16, 2024, Dixon published an op-ed in the Salisbury Post acknowledging that SPD officers had never reported juvenile criminal contacts to juvenile authorities and had not followed up with juvenile justice to request complaints. After that date, Dixon made no documented referral to the District Attorney, the State Bureau of Investigation, or any other authority. She filed no administrative complaint. She issued no administrative directive. The op-ed is a public communication published in a newspaper. It is not a judicial act within the jurisdiction of the court. The subsequent failure to act on its documented contents is an omission of administrative duty, not an exercise of judicial function. Judicial immunity does not extend to administrative omissions.
Defendant Cook: Cook is District Attorney of Prosecutorial District 19. Under N.C.G.S. § 7B-2404(a), her office is the mandatory recipient of juvenile court complaints referred by law enforcement. On April 16, 2024, Dixon's published op-ed documented that SPD officers were not filing those referrals. Cook made no documented response. On April 21, 2021, Cook declined to prosecute SPD Officer Hampton for recorded conduct that her own press release characterized as a 'bad act.' On both occasions Cook declined to act against SPD officers for documented violations of law or policy. Absolute prosecutorial immunity applies to the exercise of prosecutorial discretion within the scope of the prosecutor's role as advocate. It does not apply where the claim is that the prosecutor failed to perform a mandatory statutory duty, or where a pattern of declinations targeting a specific class establishes an equal protection violation. Cook's declinations are documented. The mandatory duty is statutory. The pattern is the record.
Defendant Allen: Allen is Sheriff of Rowan County. He commands the Rowan County Sheriff's Office and the Rowan County Detention Center. He has no command authority over the Salisbury Police Department, which is a separate municipal agency under the City of Salisbury. Dixon's April 16, 2024 op-ed placed Allen on constructive notice of a systemic juvenile reporting failure in the county's law enforcement infrastructure. After that date, Allen: (1) maintained a documented policy of releasing pretrial detainees from custody to avoid the county's medical billing liability, as admitted in the Salisbury Post, August 14, 2025; (2) received a written complaint of sexual harassment against Deputy Karriker, acknowledged prior complaints against Karriker, directed the victim to tolerate the conduct, and retained Karriker in uniform for three months; (3) allowed the Medication Assistance Program to lapse when its first bill went unpaid while opioid settlement funds designated for inmate treatment were available. Qualified immunity does not apply where the officer's own published statements establish that his conduct violated clearly established Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment prohibitions on deliberate indifference to the serious medical and safety needs of pretrial detainees.
Defendants Edds, Greene, Klusman, Caskey, and Pierce: Under N.C.G.S. § 58-72-20, the Rowan County Board of Commissioners is required to examine and approve the official bonds of county officers. Each named Commissioner held that obligation during the limitations period. On April 16, 2024, Dixon's op-ed was published in the Salisbury Post documenting that SPD officers were not fulfilling mandatory juvenile reporting requirements and that no corrective action had been taken. The Commissioners took no documented action to examine whether bonded officers were performing the duties the bonds secured. Their continued approval of bonds for officers after that date, without documented examination of performance, is the breach of the specific statutory duty imposed by § 58-72-20. Legislative immunity covers legislative acts. The examination and approval of official bonds is a ministerial statutory obligation, not a legislative act.
Defendant Wyrick: Wyrick is Clerk of Superior Court for Rowan County. Official bonds for county officers are filed with and held by the Clerk's office. On March 5, 2026, Plaintiff submitted a written public records request under N.C.G.S. Chapter 132 to Wyrick's office seeking those bonds, bond approval records, oaths of office, and related documents. A staff member in Wyrick's office refused to produce the records, refused to identify herself, and directed Plaintiff to leave. No written explanation of any denial was provided as required by § 132-6.2(c). The production of public records upon lawful request is a ministerial function of the Clerk's office. It is not a judicial act. Judicial immunity does not apply to ministerial functions.
Source: Salisbury Post, April 16, 2024, byline: "Dixon is Chief District Court Judge of the Judicial District 27 Rowan County."
June 12, 2024
Rachel Anne Banks, 34, a pretrial detainee held in the Rowan County Detention Center because she could not post bail, hanged herself in her cell. She was found unresponsive but alive. The guard responsible for conducting mandatory 40-minute welfare checks missed the required check by seven minutes, as documented by mechanical monitoring records. Banks was transported to the hospital, where she never regained consciousness.
Source: Salisbury Post, August 14, 2025.
June 13, 2024
The morning after Banks was transported to the hospital — while she lay unconscious and on ventilator support — Defendant Sease signed an order releasing Banks from the custody of the Rowan County Detention Center. Banks had not been convicted of any offense. She had not posted bail. She had made no request for release. She was unconscious and incapable of making any such request. There was no lawful basis for her release.
The release voided the county's mandatory obligation under the 2018 in-custody death reporting statute, which requires jails to report deaths in custody, including deaths occurring in hospitals, within five days. The sole identifiable beneficiary of this release order was the county: it eliminated both the mandatory reporting obligation and the associated medical billing liability. Defendant Sease acknowledged no lawful basis for the release in any public statement. He did not respond to the Salisbury Post's request for comment on this action.
A judicial act entitled to immunity is the exercise of judicial function within the jurisdiction of the court. The release of an unconscious pretrial detainee for whom no lawful basis of release existed — at the documented benefit of the county's fiscal and reporting interests — is not within the scope of lawful judicial authority. An act taken without lawful authority is not a judicial act. Immunity does not attach.
Source: Salisbury Post, August 14, 2025.
June 2024–July 2025
Banks died in the hospital approximately three weeks after the hanging, having never regained consciousness. Her mother, Terri Banks, did not learn of her daughter's death for approximately one year — and then only through a private source, not through any official notification from the county. Because Banks had been released from custody before her death, no in-custody death report was filed.
Source: Salisbury Post, August 14, 2025.
July 2024
A 22-year-old female deputy filed a written complaint reporting that Deputy Coyt Karriker subjected her to sexual harassment including physical contact, sexual comments, and unwanted advances. She submitted the complaint to her supervisor. Defendant Allen was informed. Defendant Allen acknowledged during a subsequent recorded conversation with the victim that other women had made prior complaints against Karriker.
Source: Charlotte Observer, December 23, 2024.
September 2024
Defendant Allen met with the victim in his office. The conversation was recorded. During that recorded conversation, Defendant Allen characterized Karriker's conduct as "a non-assaultive offense" and told the victim: "If you're gonna be a patrol officer, you're gonna have to sometimes put your big girl pants on… You can't be offended of anybody, because if you do, you're gonna have a very short career in this field." Defendant Allen directed the victim to initiate prosecution herself at the magistrate's office. The victim resigned the following day.
Source: Charlotte Observer, December 23, 2024; audio recording of Allen's conversation with the victim.
July–October 2024
Karriker was purportedly removed from paid duty but retained his RCSO uniform and deputy certification. He appeared in the Rowan County Courthouse — the same building where the victim worked — in his RCSO uniform after the complaint was filed. Rowan County HR records show Karriker's last day worked was July 26, 2024, but he was not separated from employment until October 17, 2024 — nearly three months after Allen told the public he had been removed.
Source: Charlotte Observer, December 23, 2024; Rowan County HR records.
August 14, 2025
Defendant Allen gave an extended interview to the Salisbury Post in which he publicly acknowledged: (1) that the guard missed the mandatory 40-minute welfare check by seven minutes on the night Banks hanged herself; (2) that the county's practice is to release inmates from custody when charges are nominal and medical care is extensive, specifically to avoid paying medical bills — "if an inmate is not a risk to the community, if charges are nominal and the care needed is extensive, do we release them out of custody? Yes, we do"; (3) that the Medication Assistance Program — which had begun addressing withdrawal for inmates including those at acute suicide risk — was discontinued when its first bill went unpaid, and that Allen "was not sure what happened" with the opioid settlement funds that were intended to pay it; and (4) that the county bears medical costs for inmates in custody as a budget matter. Defendant Edds did not respond to the Salisbury Post's request for comment.
These are Defendant Allen's own statements, published in the Salisbury Post on August 14, 2025, attributed to him by name. They establish: (1) a county policy of releasing pretrial detainees when medical costs are extensive; (2) discontinuation of the MAP program after one quarter when its first bill went unpaid; and (3) that Allen did not know what happened to the opioid settlement funds designated for inmate treatment. Under Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), a defendant's own published admission satisfies the plausibility standard without inference.
Source: Salisbury Post, August 14, 2025.
October 21, 2025
At a public sheriff's candidate forum at Sloan Park, covered by the Salisbury Post on October 21, 2025, Defendant Allen publicly stated that he would tell the female deputy who had reported sexual harassment to "put her big girl pants on again," because the deputy had experienced a panic attack upon encountering Karriker in the courthouse. Defendant Allen made this statement publicly, on the record, at a campaign event, more than one year after the initial incident.
Source: Salisbury Post, October 21, 2025.
August 2022 — Deputy Tyler Luby
Deputy Tyler Luby was charged August 26, 2022 with two counts of assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury and two counts of simple assault. Body camera footage documented Luby striking Jeffrey Wayne Massey multiple times with a flashlight during a foot chase. Luby had been fired from RCSO in November 2021 following an internal investigation into the incident. The NC State Bureau of Investigation conducted an independent investigation. Luby turned himself in on the charges. Cook declined to comment on the case, citing the NC Rules of Professional Conduct for pending criminal investigations. The case is a documented instance of a sworn RCSO deputy under Allen's command using a deadly weapon against a citizen, with the conduct captured on body camera, resulting in criminal charges.
Source: WSOC TV, August 26, 2022; WCNC, August 26, 2022; Yahoo News, August 26, 2022.
May 22, 2025 — Second Constructive Knowledge Event
Defendant Dixon published a second op-ed in the Salisbury Post on May 22, 2025, again under her byline as Chief District Court Judge for NC Judicial District 19, responding to a public press release by Defendant Allen attacking the juvenile justice system following a fight involving juveniles. In this op-ed, Dixon documented that SPD contacted juvenile justice on the night of the incident regarding secure custody. Dixon explicitly identified SPD by name in connection with juvenile justice handling. She stated that the statutory criteria for secure custody under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1903 were not met on the facts presented. She also stated that detectives from SPD would be meeting with juvenile justice officials to determine appropriate charges. Allen's public press release, which Dixon characterized as misinformed and spurious, advocated for immediate consequences for juveniles before investigation or charges were filed. Dixon identified this advocacy as constitutionally impermissible — a violation of due process by a sworn officer. This publication constitutes a second constructive knowledge event for all defendants, including the Mayor and City Council of the City of Salisbury, whose police department is named in the op-ed, and who held supervisory authority over SPD under N.C.G.S. § 160A Article 13.
Source: Salisbury Post, May 22, 2025 — Beth S. Dixon, Chief District Court Judge, NC Judicial District 19.
March 2025
Defendant Allen initiated an internal investigation after a division supervisor discovered that Detectives Christopher Greer and Jeremy Thomason had improperly handled property recovered from a stolen property case in February 2025. Allen reported the matter to the NC State Bureau of Investigation on March 12, 2025. Both detectives were terminated.
January 13, 2026
A Rowan County grand jury indicted Greer and Thomason on felony charges of larceny by an employee and obstruction of justice. The case was referred to the Randolph County District Attorney's office for prosecution. Greer was already working part-time for the Landis Police Department at the time of the indictment.
Source: Salisbury Post, January 14, 2026; QC News, January 14, 2026.
February 16, 2026
Former Detention Officer Douglas Moore Jr. was charged with felony providing tobacco to an inmate and felony conspiracy for smuggling contraband into the Rowan County Detention Facility for an inmate held on attempted first-degree murder charges. Moore was arrested on scene and transferred to the Cabarrus County Detention Center.
Source: Salisbury Post, February 17, 2026.
March 5, 2026
Plaintiff personally appeared at the Rowan County Courthouse and presented to a staff member in Defendant Wyrick's office a written Request for Inspection and Copies of Public Records pursuant to N.C.G.S. Chapter 132, seeking official bonds, bond approval records, annual examination records, oaths of office, and related documents for named defendants. The staff member received the request, reviewed it, and returned with the following response: that "not all of those records were there," that she was "not going to tell me what she was going to tell me," and that Plaintiff should "just leave." The staff member refused to sign the receipt copy of the request and refused to identify herself when asked. No written explanation of any denial was provided as required by § 132-6.2(c). A civilian witness was present and is identifiable through the public upset bid record for Rowan County for March 5, 2026.
Source: Contemporaneous written record; certified mail follow-up letter to Defendant Wyrick, March 5, 2026.
Plaintiff then encountered four Rowan County Sheriff's Office deputies stationed at the courthouse security checkpoint. Plaintiff informed the deputies that a crime was being committed in their presence — specifically, the willful obstruction of a public records request in violation of N.C.G.S. § 132-9. Their failure to act constitutes willful deprivation of Plaintiff's rights under color of law within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 242. When Plaintiff asked a supervisor to identify himself, the supervisor walked away without responding. Courthouse policy prohibits cameras, cell phones, and recording devices — a blanket prohibition enforced by Defendant Allen's personnel that constitutes a First Amendment violation independent of the records obstruction.
Source: Contemporaneous record; published courthouse security policy; TikTok documentation, March 5, 2026.
V. PREDICATE ACTS OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY
The following acts constitute racketeering activity within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1). Each is sourced to the record established in Section IV above.
A. Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law — 18 U.S.C. § 242
The release of Rachel Anne Banks from custody while she lay unconscious and on ventilator support, for the documented purpose of avoiding the county's mandatory in-custody death reporting obligation and medical billing liability, constitutes the willful deprivation of Banks's rights under color of law, including her right to due process and her family's right to notification under the 2018 in-custody death reporting statute. There was no lawful basis for this release. The absence of lawful authority is what removes the act from the protection of judicial immunity.
The conduct of Defendant Allen's deputies on March 5, 2026, in maintaining the obstruction of a lawful public records request after being directly informed of the specific statute being violated, constitutes the willful deprivation of Plaintiff's rights under color of law, including his First Amendment right to document government conduct, his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection, and his procedural due process right in the statutory property interest created by N.C.G.S. Chapter 132. See Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972).
B. Obstruction of Justice — 18 U.S.C. § 1503
The execution of a release order on an unconscious pretrial detainee for the documented purpose of voiding a mandatory statutory reporting obligation constitutes obstruction of the administration of law. The reporting statute's purpose is to ensure accountability for in-custody deaths. Using a legal instrument to void that accountability mechanism is obstruction of the statute's purpose and of any proceeding that would follow from proper reporting.
The conduct of Defendant Wyrick's office on March 5, 2026, in refusing to produce mandatory public records, refusing to identify the obstructing employee, and directing the requester to leave without written explanation of any denial, constitutes obstruction of Plaintiff's right of access to records required for the prosecution of civil claims arising from the predicate acts described herein.
C. Selective Non-Prosecution as Deprivation of Equal Protection — 18 U.S.C. § 242
On April 21, 2021, Cook declined to prosecute SPD Officer Hampton for conduct her own press release described as a 'bad act,' citing her determination that it did not constitute a crime. On April 16, 2024, Dixon's published op-ed documented that SPD officers were not complying with mandatory juvenile reporting requirements under N.C.G.S. § 7B-2404(a). Cook took no documented action in response. In both instances, Cook declined to act against SPD officers for documented violations. Absolute prosecutorial immunity applies to the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. It does not apply to a claim that a prosecutor failed to perform a mandatory statutory duty, or to an equal protection claim based on a documented pattern of declinations targeting a specific class of potential defendants. Cook's two documented declinations, both involving SPD officers, both resulting in no prosecution, establish the pattern required to plead an equal protection violation.
D. Wire Fraud — 18 U.S.C. § 1343
To the extent that any communication was transmitted by wire — including the electronic release order signed by Defendant Sease on June 13, 2024, county email, or electronic communications among defendants — in furtherance of the scheme described herein, such communications constitute wire fraud within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. The identities of all electronic communications are ascertainable through discovery.
VI. THE OATHS
Each named defendant holding public office swore an oath. The oath is not ceremony. It is a contract between the officer and the sovereign people. Its terms are fixed. Its words have not changed. The pattern documented in Section IV above is measured against those words.
Federal Judicial Oath — 28 U.S.C. § 453
"I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me under the Constitution and laws of the United States."
North Carolina Constitutional Oath — N.C. Const. Art. VI, § 7
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and maintain the Constitution and laws of the United States, and the Constitution and laws of North Carolina not inconsistent therewith, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of my office as _____, so help me God."
Administer. Active. Transitive. Requires an object and an action directed at that object. Not "observe justice." Not "defer to justice." Administer it. To a person. Now. You are the verb.
Justice. Not procedure. Not institutional comfort. The Roman jurists defined it — ius suum cuique — rendering to each what is his due. Blackstone carried it into English common law. The Founders carried Blackstone into the Constitution. The word has a 2,000-year definitional chain and none of those definitions include "dismiss on standing."
Without respect to persons. Borrowed directly from scripture. Deuteronomy 1:17. Acts 10:34. James 2:1–9. Prosopolempsia — face-receiving. Judging based on who stands before you rather than what stands before you. The prohibition is absolute in every tradition that fed into Anglo-American jurisprudence. No asterisk. No exception for colleagues. No exception for institutions. No exception for the powerful.
Faithfully. From fides. Latin. Faith. Fidelity. The root of fiduciary. A fiduciary holds power on behalf of another and is categorically prohibited from using that power for self-interest or institutional interest at the expense of the beneficiary. The people are the beneficiary. Not the bar. Not the bench. Not the budget. The people. Every time. Without exception.
Impartially. Not partial. Partial means you favor a part over the whole. Impartial means the outcome is determined solely by the facts and the law as written — not by who will be uncomfortable with the result.
All duties. Not the comfortable ones. Not the ones with clear precedent. Not the ones that don't require confronting a colleague or an institution. All duties incumbent upon me. The duty to see a constitutional injury when it is documented. The duty to act on it. The duty to police the bench. The duty to say the thing that must be said regardless of what it costs the institution.
Faithfully meant fidelity to the beneficiary in Cicero's Rome, in Blackstone's England, and in Philadelphia in 1787. It means the same thing today.
If the application has changed — if the oath now means something softer, something more institutionally convenient — someone rewrote it without telling the people who are still being held to the original version.
VII. MUNICIPAL LIABILITY — MONELL
Rowan County is liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pursuant to Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), under three independent theories, each documented in the public record.
Policy. Defendant Allen publicly acknowledged in a published interview that the county's practice is to release inmates from custody when charges are nominal and medical care is extensive, specifically to manage the county's medical billing liability. This is not an aberration. It is a stated policy, described in the officer's own words, published in the county's newspaper of record. A policy stated by the final policymaker for the county jail is municipal policy under Monell. See Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (1986).
Custom. Four persons died in the Rowan County Detention Center between 2017 and 2020. State inspectors cited the same deficiencies in each inspection. Plans of correction were submitted, accepted, and not implemented. The facility failed subsequent inspections for the same deficiencies. Rachel Banks died in 2024. The deficiencies were the same. That is not negligence. That is a custom within the meaning of Monell — a persistent, widespread practice so well-settled as to constitute a standard operating procedure of the entity.
Deliberate Indifference. The Medication Assistance Program was established to address withdrawal — the documented medical condition that placed pretrial detainees including Banks at acute risk of self-harm. The program ran one quarter. The first bill went unpaid. The program died. Rowan County was simultaneously receiving annual installments from the statewide opioid settlement, with the county's own website identifying treatment for incarcerated persons as a funded strategy. The decision not to fund the program — while settlement funds flowed — satisfies the deliberate indifference standard of City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989): the county knew to a moral certainty that pretrial detainees at risk of withdrawal would harm themselves; it established a program to address that risk; it defunded that program while funds designated for exactly that purpose were available; and a pretrial detainee at risk of withdrawal died. On the record.
VIII. INJURY AND STANDING
Ground One: Bond Premium Loss — Direct Quantifiable Property Injury. Plaintiff is a resident, taxpayer, and property owner of Rowan County, North Carolina. These are facts, not inferences. His tax payments have contributed to the county's general fund, from which bond premiums are paid to secure the faithful performance of the duties of each named bonded defendant. These are facts, not inferences. Official bonds under N.C.G.S. § 58-72-5 are contractual instruments: the bonded officer receives the authority of their office; the surety guarantees their faithful performance; the taxpayer funds the premium. When faithful performance is not delivered, the taxpayer has paid for a contractual performance they did not receive. That is a property injury.
The Rowan County Board of Commissioners is required by N.C.G.S. § 58-72-20 to examine and approve official bonds. Defendants Edds, Greene, Klusman, Caskey, and Pierce held the statutory obligation to verify that bonded officers were performing the duties the bond secures. The April 16, 2024 constructive knowledge event placed each Commissioner on notice of documented breach. Their continued approval of bonds for officers in documented breach — bonds funded by Plaintiff's tax payments — is a direct causal link between the enterprise's conduct and Plaintiff's property injury.
The exact dollar figure of Plaintiff's per-capita share of bond premiums paid for the period April 16, 2024 through the date of filing is calculable from the bond records requested pursuant to N.C.G.S. Chapter 132 on March 5, 2026 — records Defendant Wyrick's office refused to produce. Plaintiff is unable to state the precise figure because the enterprise's own obstruction prevents it. The right to amend once records are produced is reserved. The injury is real, direct, and calculable. It is not speculative. See Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn, No. 23-365 (U.S. Apr. 2, 2025) (economic harm recoverable under § 1964(c) where directly caused by racketeering activity).
Ground Two: Statutory Records Right — Recognized Property Interest. N.C.G.S. Chapter 132 creates a statutory right of access to public records. Statutory rights conferred by law are property interests protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. See Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972). Plaintiff's statutory right of access was directly and deliberately obstructed by the enterprise's operational conduct on March 5, 2026 — a documented act in furtherance of the pattern of racketeering activity described herein. This is an independent and sufficient basis for § 1964(c) standing.
Rachel Anne Banks suffered the deprivation of her life without due process of law. Her family suffered the deprivation of notification of her death — a right created by the 2018 in-custody death reporting statute — by reason of a legal instrument of the enterprise executed the morning after she hanged herself.
The citizens of Rowan County have suffered the ongoing deprivation of government conducted in faithful accordance with the oaths sworn on their behalf.
Reservation of Additional Claims. The predicate acts described in Section IV are not exhaustive. Each arrest made by RCSO deputies during the limitations period is subject to examination for constitutional deprivation. Each juvenile proceeding before Defendant Dixon during the limitations period is subject to examination for due process violation. Each declination by Defendant Cook during the limitations period is subject to examination for equal protection violation. Each pretrial detainee held in the Rowan County Detention Center during the limitations period is a potential claimant under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Discovery will identify additional victims, acts, and damages.
Plaintiff further reserves the right to seek class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of all Rowan County taxpayers whose tax payments funded bond premiums securing the faithful performance of duties the documented pattern establishes were not faithfully performed. The per-capita injury of each class member is calculable from the bond records requested on March 5, 2026 and not yet produced. The aggregate injury across the taxpaying population of Rowan County — trebled under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) — is a figure the defendants are in a position to calculate. They are encouraged to do so.
IX. RELIEF REQUESTED
Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:
Award treble damages pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) for injury to Plaintiff's property interest caused by the pattern of racketeering activity documented herein;
Award compensatory and punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of Plaintiff's First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights on March 5, 2026;
Award damages under N.C.G.S. § 58-76-5 against named bonded defendants and their sureties for breach of the conditions of their official bonds;
Issue injunctive relief compelling Defendant Wyrick to produce all records identified in Plaintiff's March 5, 2026 Chapter 132 request forthwith;
Issue injunctive relief requiring the Rowan County Detention Center to comply with mandatory welfare check requirements and mandatory in-custody death reporting requirements;
Appoint a federal monitor to oversee Rowan County Detention Center operations pending remediation of documented deficiencies;
Award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and N.C.G.S. § 132-9;
Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
*
Every fact stated herein is sourced to enacted statute, published public record, or the defendants' own statements. No inference is offered as fact. No allegation is made beyond what the record supports. The reader is invited to verify all of it.
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________________
ROBERT BRYANT STARNES
Pro Se Plaintiff
Rowan County, North Carolina
Comments