Opinion
C/A 0:24-1991-JDA-SVH
04-30-2024
Alexis Carberry, Plaintiff, v. Darlington County School District Represented; Tim Newman; Carla Jefferson; and Brian P. Murphy, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Shiva V. Hodges United States Magistrate Judge
Alexis Carberry (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of her constitutional rights by Darlington County School District, Tim Newman, and Carla Jefferson, as well as Brian P. Murphy (“Murphy”), a local hearing officer (collectively “Defendants”). She alleges as follows:
On or about May 19th, 2023 through July 24th, 2023, Plaintiff was hired as a students Special Education Advocate through Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or IDEA, Section 504 and Americans with Disabilities Act. Defendants published and stated false statements about the Plaintiff making accusations that resulted in a ban on the plaintiff. There was and is no evidence to justify this blatant unethical behavior, but to deny the students right to advocacy, in order to obstruct justice in discovering and continuing to be negligent of providing the student with a Free and Appropriate Public Education.
There is however, video and audio evidence to dispute Carla Jefferson and Brian P Murphy's written claims which constitute
defamation and harassment against the Plaintiff. This despite the district refusing to disclose the school surveillance video.[ECF No. 1 at 4].
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.), the undersigned is authorized to review such complaints for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the district judge. For the following reasons, the undersigned recommends this matter be summarily dismissed.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff is known to this court. As recounted by the undersigned in Carberry v. Darlington County, 23-4565-JDA (“Darlington I”), ECF No. 35, Plaintiff has filed multiple cases in this court, including against these Defendants. As relevant to the instant report and recommendation, in Darlington I, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants, asserting the same allegations and causes of action, as found in her complaint and in her proposed amended complaint filed in that case:
On or about May 19th, 2023 through July 24th, 2023, Plaintiff was hired as a students Special Education Advocate through Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or IDEA, Section 504 and Americans with Disabilities Act. Defendants published and stated false statements about the Plaintiff making accusations that resulted in a ban on the plaintiff. There was and is no evidence to justify this blatant unethical behavior, but to deny the students right to advocacy, in order to obstruct justice in discovering and continuing to be negligent of providing the student with a Free and Appropriate Public Education.
There is however, video and audio evidence to dispute Carla Jefferson and Brian P Murphy's written claims which constitute defamation and harassment against the Plaintiff. This despite the district refusing to disclose the school surveillance video.[See Darlington I, ECF No. 18 at 4; see also id., ECF No. 1-1].
In Darlington I, the undersigned issued a report and recommendation, denying Plaintiff's motion to amend her complaint as futile and recommending her case be dismissed with prejudice where her claims are not “completely devoid of merit” but where defects in her federal claims cannot be cured by amendment. [See Darlington I, ECF No. 35 at 35 (citing Shing v. MD Developmental Disabilities Admin., 698 Fed.Appx. 70, 71-72 (4th Cir. 2017))]. That report and recommendation remains pending before the district judge.
In this report and recommendation, the undersigned further recommended the district judge grant Murphy's motion for permanent injunction, directing Plaintiff that (1) she may not file civil litigation against Murphy in any court without leave of this court, (2) she must file any future actions naming Murphy in this court, and (3) any violation of this pre-filing injunction will subject her to the contempt powers of this court. [Darlington I, ECF No. 35 at 35-36].
The undersigned additionally notes that Plaintiff, in this case, has filed a motion for permanent injunction [ECF No. 3] that is substantively identical to a motion for temporary restraining order she filed in Darlington I, ECF No. 40, that also remains pending before the district judge in that case.
II. Discussion
A. Standard of Review
Plaintiff filed her 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).
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). 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). 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. 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).
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). Although the court must liberally construe a pro se complaint, the United States Supreme Court has made it clear a plaintiff must do more than make conclusory statements to state a claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Rather, the complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim that is plausible on its face, and the reviewing court need only accept as true the complaint's factual allegations, not its legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79.
B. Analysis
The complaint filed in this case should be summarily dismissed because it is duplicative of the claims Plaintiff asserted in Darlington I, against the same Defendants, already pending before this court. The court will not entertain two separate, identical lawsuits filed by the same individual against the same parties.
It is well-settled that “district courts are not required to entertain duplicative or redundant lawsuits” and may dismiss such suits as frivolous. See Cottle v. Bell, No. 00-6367, 2000 WL 1144623, *1 (4th Cir. Aug. 14, 2000); Aloe Creme Laboratories, Inc. v. Francine Co., 425 F.2d 1295, 1296 (5th Cir. 1970) (“The District Court clearly had the right to take notice of its own files and records and it had no duty to grind the same corn a second time. Once was sufficient.”) The undersigned therefore recommends, in the interests of judicial economy and efficiency, that Plaintiff's complaint be summarily dismissed.
III. Conclusion and Recommendation
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends this matter be summarily dismissed without leave for further amendment.
If the district judge accepts this recommendation, all other pending motions will be rendered moot.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
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
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).