Opinion
C. A. 0:24-133-RMG-PJG
01-23-2024
Bradley Aaron Bianco, Plaintiff, v. Johnny Holley, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
PAIGE J. GOSSETT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Bradley Aaron Bianco, a state pretrial detainee proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. This matter is before the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.) for initial review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Having reviewed the Complaint in accordance with applicable law, the court concludes this action should be summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff indicates that on October 17, 2023 the defendant, Johnny Holley, detained Plaintiff at gunpoint and assaulted Plaintiff in a driveway on Presley Road in Chester, South Carolina. Plaintiff alleges Holley forced Plaintiff to the ground using a shotgun rifle, took Plaintiff's personal property, and held Plaintiff against his will until dark. Plaintiff alleges Holley also made a phone call to what Holley called his “heavy artillery,” which turned out to be two trucks carrying four men who arrived at the scene. Plaintiff alleges Holley and the men lifted Plaintiff up and tried to put Plaintiff in one of the trucks. Plaintiff alleges Holley struck Plaintiff in the face with the stock of the rifle, causing severe injury, but Plaintiff was able to flee. Plaintiff alleges Holley fired the rifle at Plaintiff, striking Plaintiff in the left hip. Plaintiff brings this action for false imprisonment and assault and battery. Plaintiff seeks damages and “immunity from criminal charges filed by Defendant.” (Compl., ECF No. 1 at 5.)
II. Discussion
A. Standard of Review
Under established local procedure in this judicial district, a careful review has been made of the pro se Complaint. The Complaint has been filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which permits an indigent litigant to commence an action in federal court without prepaying the administrative costs of proceeding with the lawsuit. This statute allows a district court to dismiss the case upon a finding that the action “is frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
This court is required to liberally construe pro se complaints, which are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); King v. Rubenstein, 825 F.3d 206, 214 (4th Cir. 2016). Nonetheless, the requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts which set forth a claim cognizable in a federal district court. See Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 684 (2009) (outlining pleading requirements under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for “all civil actions”).
B. Analysis
The instant case is subject to summary dismissal because Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that the court has subject matter jurisdiction in this case. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, “constrained to exercise only the authority conferred by Article III of the Constitution and affirmatively granted by federal statute.” In re Bulldog Trucking, Inc., 147 F.3d 347, 352 (4th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, a federal court is required, sua sponte, to determine if a valid basis for its jurisdiction exists, “and to dismiss the action if no such ground appears.” Id. at 352; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”). Although the absence of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time during the case, determining jurisdiction at the outset of the litigation is the most efficient procedure. Lovern v. Edwards, 190 F.3d 648, 654 (4th Cir. 1999).
There is no presumption that a federal court has jurisdiction over a case, Pinkley, Inc. v. City of Frederick, 191 F.3d 394, 399 (4th Cir. 1999), and a plaintiff must allege facts essential to show jurisdiction in his pleadings. McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936); see also Dracos v. Hellenic Lines, Ltd., 762 F.2d 348, 350 (4th Cir. 1985) (“[P]laintiffs must affirmatively plead the jurisdiction of the federal court.”). To this end, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(1) requires that the complaint provide “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction[.]”
The two most commonly recognized and utilized bases for federal court jurisdiction are (1) “federal question” under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and (2) “diversity of citizenship” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. As discussed below, the allegations contained in Plaintiff's Complaint do not fall within the scope of either of these forms of this court's limited jurisdiction. And no other basis for federal jurisdiction is apparent from the Complaint.
First, federal question jurisdiction requires the plaintiff to show that the case is one “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Despite Plaintiff indicating on the complaint form that this case arises under the court's federal question jurisdiction, (Compl., ECF No. 1 at 3), Plaintiff's allegations do not assert that the defendant violated a federal statute or constitutional provision, nor is any source of federal question jurisdiction otherwise evident from the face of the pleading. Instead, the Complaint raises two state common law claims-false imprisonment and assault and battery. See generally Law v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 629 S.E.2d 642, 651 (S.C. 2006) (false imprisonment); Mellen v. Lane, 659 S.E.2d 236, 244 (S.C. Ct. App. 2008) (assault and battery). Therefore, federal question jurisdiction does not exist in this case.
To the extent Plaintiff seeks relief from state criminal charges, Plaintiff cannot obtain such relief in a common law tort action, nor has Plaintiff named a proper defendant to bring such a claim.
Second, the diversity statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), requires complete diversity of parties and an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000. Complete diversity of parties in a case means that no party on one side may be a citizen of the same state as any party on the other side. See Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 372-74 nn. 13-16 (1978). In absence of diversity of citizenship, the amount in controversy is irrelevant. Here, Plaintiff provides South Carolina addresses for both parties and he does not otherwise indicate that the parties have diverse citizenship. Therefore, Plaintiff fails to show that diversity jurisdiction exists in this case.
III. Conclusion
There being no apparent basis of federal jurisdiction over this matter, the court recommends that this case be summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. “[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk
United States District Court
901 Richland Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).