Opinion
C/A No.: 5:20-782-JMC-KDW
04-30-2020
Shaquan Burgess, Plaintiff, v. Bryan P. Stirling, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Shaquan Burgess ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, filed this action alleging violations of his constitutional rights by South Carolina Department of Corrections Director Bryan P. Stirling. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.), the undersigned is authorized to review such complaints for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the district judge. For the reasons that follow, the undersigned recommends the district judge dismiss the Complaint. I. Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff states there was a riot at Lee Correctional Institution on April 15, 2018, and seven inmates were killed and a number of other inmates were stabbed. ECF No. 1 at 5-6. Plaintiff alleges the doors would not lock in the unit where he was housed and he was forced to run and hide to save his life. Id. at 6. Plaintiff says he was placed in lock-up without any charges. Id. Plaintiff states he was diagnosed with PTSD and has flashbacks and nightmares about inmates being killed and dead bodies. Id. Plaintiff alleges he has tried to take his own life because he wants the nightmares to stop. Id. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. Id.
On March 4, 2020, the court issued an order notifying Plaintiff that his Complaint was subject to summary dismissal because he failed to allege sufficient factual allegations to state a claim. ECF No. 9. The order further advised Plaintiff that he had until March 18, 2020 to file an amended complaint or otherwise cure the identified deficiencies in his pleadings. Id. On March 19, 2020, the undersigned granted Plaintiff's Motion for Extension to filed a response to the March 4, 2020 order, and Plaintiff's deadline to file a response was changed to April 20, 2020. ECF No. 12. Plaintiff has failed to file a response to the March 4, 2020 order. II. Discussion
A. Standard of Review
Plaintiff filed his Complaint 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. To protect against possible abuses of this privilege, the statute allows a district court to dismiss a case upon a finding that the action fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted or is frivolous or malicious. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii). A finding of frivolity can be made where the complaint lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). A claim based on a meritless legal theory may be dismissed sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).
Pro se complaints are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). A federal court is charged with liberally construing a complaint filed by a pro se litigant to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). In evaluating a pro se complaint, the plaintiff's allegations are assumed to be true. Fine v. City of N.Y., 529 F.2d 70, 74 (2d Cir. 1975). The mandated liberal construction afforded to pro se pleadings means that if the court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, it should do so. Nevertheless, the requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts that set forth a claim currently cognizable in a federal district court. Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 390-91 (4th Cir. 1990).
B. Analysis
To state a claim that conditions of confinement violate constitutional requirements, "a plaintiff must show both (1) a serious deprivation of a basic human need; and (2) deliberate indifference to prison conditions on the part of prison officials." Strickler v. Waters, 989 F.2d 1375, 1379 (4th Cir. 1993). Generally, prisoners do not have a constitutional right to demand to be housed in one prison verses another. Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224 (1976) ("[G]iven a valid conviction, the criminal defendant has been constitutionally deprived of his liberty to the extent that the State may confine him and subject him to the rules of its prison system so long as the conditions of confinement do not otherwise violate the Constitution."). In order to show a constitutional violation with respect to a custody classification, the conditions must exceed the sentence imposed or create an atypical or significant hardship in violation of a protected liberty interest. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-484 (1995). Further, a plaintiff asserting unconstitutional conditions of confinement must demonstrate that he suffered a serious or significant physical or mental injury as a result of the challenged condition. See Strickler, 989 F.2d at 1380-81. However, "[n]o Federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison, or other correctional facility, for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury." 42 U .S.C. § 1997e(e).
Here, Plaintiff's allegations about his unlawful confinement on lock-up do not establish that Defendant has imposed an atypical and significant hardship or that the conditions in which he is housed has exceeded the sentence imposed. Additionally, Plaintiff's allegations concerning the right to a safe living environment fail to state a constitutional violation. Plaintiff admits that all the injuries stemming from his conditions of confinement are mental health issues, see ECF No. 1 at 6; therefore, he fails to state a civil rights claim. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to state a claim and the undersigned recommends Plaintiff's complaint be summarily dismissed. III. Conclusion and Recommendation
By order issued March 4, 2020, the undersigned provided Plaintiff an opportunity to correct the defects identified in his Complaint and further warned Plaintiff that if he failed to timely file an amended complaint or failed to cure the identified deficiencies, the undersigned would recommend to the district court that the action be dismissed without leave for further amendment. Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint within the time provided. Accordingly, in addition to the reasons discussed herein, this action should be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with a court order. The undersigned recommends the district court dismiss this action. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc'y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 630 (4th Cir. 2015)).
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. April 30, 2020
Florence, South Carolina
/s/
Kaymani D. West
United States Magistrate Judge
The parties are directed to note the important information in the attached
"Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation."
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
Post Office Box 2317
Florence, South Carolina 29503
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).