A North Carolina resident is fighting back against what he claims are unconstitutional restrictions on his freedom. Robert Ellis, the plaintiff, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on November 24, 2025, against defendants Tatiana Melissa Soria-Aponte and Chief “Booma.” Ellis is seeking immediate relief from electronic GPS monitoring and curfew restrictions that he argues were imposed without due process.
According to the complaint, Ellis has been subjected to indefinite electronic GPS monitoring and a strict curfew since September 8, 2024. These measures were allegedly enforced based on an unverified Child Protective Services (CPS) report citing only a technical violation of post-release supervision (PRS), with no allegations of abuse or criminal misconduct. Ellis claims that these sanctions were imposed without any notice, evidence disclosure, opportunity to contest allegations, or hearing—a violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights as established in Morrissey v. Brewer.
Ellis’s situation is further complicated by his wife’s temporary medical impairment, which leaves her unable to perform daily household functions. With three minor children requiring care, Ellis argues that the PRS restrictions prevent him from providing necessary support to his family. Despite attempts to modify these conditions through state channels over two months, Ellis asserts that he faced significant gatekeeping by the District Attorney’s office and state court administrative staff.
The plaintiff contends that federal intervention is necessary to prevent irreparable harm to his family and protect his constitutional rights. He seeks a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) allowing him access to his family home for routine support activities and permission to travel for this purpose. Additionally, he requests suspension of electronic monitoring alerts during permitted activities and permission to leave his residence before 11:30 a.m. for childcare duties.
Ellis’s legal battle highlights issues of procedural and substantive due process violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He accuses the defendants of acting arbitrarily and capriciously by imposing severe liberty restrictions based on unverified allegations and personal animus. Furthermore, he alleges denial of access to courts due to administrative gatekeeping and interference by supervising officers.
Representing himself pro se in this case, Robert Ellis has exhausted all available state avenues for relief but found them blocked or inaccessible. The complaint does not list any attorneys representing either party nor specific law firms involved in the case proceedings.
The case is being heard under Civil Action No. 5:25-cv-00763-D with no judge explicitly named in the document provided.
Source: 525cv00763_Ellis_v_Soria_Aponte_Complaint_Eastern_District_North_Carolina.pdf
