Opinion
C. A. 9:24-00508-TMC-MHC
04-30-2024
Thomas Carroll Cooper, III, Plaintiff, v. Greenville County Detention Center, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Molly H. Cherry United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff Thomas Carroll Cooper, III, a state prisoner who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this action against Defendants alleging violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), pretrial proceedings in this action have been referred to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge.
In a Proper Form Order dated March 29, 2024, Plaintiff was directed to provide certain documents to bring his case into proper form. He was also notified of pleading deficiencies and given the opportunity to amend his Complaint. See ECF No. 4. The Order was returned marked “undeliverable” and “unable to forward” on April 15, 2024. ECF No. 7. Plaintiff has not provided the required proper form documents and has not filed an amended complaint.
I. BACKGROUND
Defendant is the Greenville County Detention Center (GCDC). Plaintiff was pretrial detainee at the GCDC at the time he filed this action. He appears to be attempting to bring claims against Defendant GCDC under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (§ 1983) for alleged violations of his First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. ECF No. 1 at 3. In response to a question on the Complaint form asking Plaintiff the facts of his claim, he wrote that “[t]he institution violates the basic civil liberties of American citizens.” Id. at 5.
Plaintiff does not list any actual injuries, merely asserting that he has “[i]njuries to civil liberties; 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th, 14th Amd.” ECF No. 1 at 5. As relief, Plaintiff requests that the court:
Monetize the time I was robbed, while incarcerated ($100.00) per day. Require GCDC to create living conditions that do not deny the minimal civil measures of life's necessities.Id.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A pro se Complaint is reviewed pursuant to the procedural provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996), and in light of the following precedents: Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992), Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989), Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), and Todd v. Baskerville, 712 F.2d 70 (4th Cir. 1983). Pro se complaints are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys, and a court is charged with liberally construing a complaint filed by a pro se litigant to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); King v. Rubenstein, 825 F.3d 206, 214 (4th Cir. 2016). However, the requirement of liberal construction does not mean that this Court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts which set forth a claim currently 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”).
III. DISCUSSION
It is recommended that this action be summarily dismissed for the reasons discussed below.
A. Failure to State a Claim
This action is subject to summary dismissal because Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim. Plaintiff brings claims under § 1983 which “‘is not itself a source of substantive rights,' but merely provides ‘a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.'” Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994) (quoting Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n.3 (1979)). To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
Plaintiff merely lists a number of constitutional amendments as his bases for federal question jurisdiction but does not alleged facts as to each alleged constitutional violation. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (requiring, in order to avoid dismissal, “‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,' in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests'” (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2))). Although the “liberal pleading requirements” of Rule 8(a) only require a “short and plain” statement of the claim, a plaintiff must “offer more detail ... than the bald statement that he has a valid claim of some type against the defendant.” Trulock v. Freeh, 275 F.3d 391, 405 (4th Cir. 2001) (internal citations omitted); see also White v. White, 886 F.2d 721, 723 (4th Cir. 1989) (district court did not abuse discretion by dismissing plaintiff's complaint which “failed to contain any factual allegations tending to support his bare assertion”).
Because Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee, his claims are evaluated under the Fourteenth Amendment rather than the Eighth Amendment (which is used to evaluate conditions of confinement claims for individuals convicted of crimes). See City of Revere v. Mass. Gen. Hosp., 463 U.S. 239, 243-44 (1983). In any event, “[the] due process rights of a pretrial detainee are at least as great as the [E]ighth [A]mendment protections available to the convicted prisoner.” Martin v. Gentile, 849 F.2d 863, 870 (4th Cir. 1988). Recently, the Fourth Circuit held in a published decision that pretrial detainees could state a Fourteenth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to a serious risk of harm on a purely objective basis that the challenged action is not related to a legitimate non-punitive governmental purpose or is excessive in relation to that purpose. Short v. Hartman, 87 F.4th 593, 611 (4th Cir. 2023) (citing Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389, 398 (2015)). Here, review of the Complaint reveals that Plaintiff fails to allege facts to state a claim for deliberate indifference.
In general, to state a claim for deliberate indifference to a constitutional right, a pretrial detainee must allege that (1) he had a medical condition or injury that posed a substantial risk of serious harm; (2) the defendant intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly acted or failed to act to appropriately address the risk that the condition posed; (3) the defendant knew or should have known (a) that the plaintiff had that condition and (b) that the defendant's action or inaction posed an unjustifiably high risk of harm; and (4) as a result, the plaintiff was harmed. See Short v. Hartman, 87 F.4th at 611.
B. Defendant is not a State Actor under § 1983
Defendant appears to be a building or group of buildings. It is subject to summary dismissal because courts have routinely held that an inanimate object such as a building, facility, or grounds does not act under color of state law, and it is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983. See Allison v. California Adult Auth., 419 F.2d 822, 823 (9th Cir. 1969) (California Adult Authority and San Quentin Prison not “person[s]” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983); Nelson v. Lexington Cnty. Det. Ctr., No. 8:10-2988-JMC, 2011 WL 2066551, at *1 (D.S.C. May 26, 2011) (Finding that a detention center, as a building and not a person, was not amenable to suit under § 1983); Brooks v. Pembroke City Jail, 722 F.Supp. 1294, 1301(E.D. N.C. 1989) (“Claims under § 1983 are directed at ‘persons' and the jail is not a person amenable to suit.”).
C. Failure to Bring Case into Proper Form
Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to bring this case into proper form. In the Court's Proper Form Order, Plaintiff was given the opportunity to bring his case into proper form by paying the filing fee or submitting a completed and signed Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit (Form AO-240), providing a completed summons form, and providing a completed and signed Form USM-285 for Defendant. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff failed to provide the required proper form documents, has not provided an updated address, and has not co Court in any way.
The “Certification and Closing” section of the complaint form (Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights (Prisoner)) form on which Plaintiff submitted his Complaint provides:
I agree to provide the Clerk's Office with any changes to my address where case-related papers may be served. I understand that my failure to keep a current address on file with the Clerk's Office may result in the dismissal of my case.ECF No. 1 at 11.
The time to bring this case into proper form has now lapsed, and Plaintiff h provide all the required items to bring his case into proper form. Thus, in the alter recommended that this action be dismissed in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 41. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962); Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95-96 (4th (holding that district court's dismissal following an explicit and reasonable warning abuse of discretion).
IV. RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that this action be dismissed withou without leave to amend, and without issuance and service of process.
See Britt v. DeJoy, 45 F.4th 790 (4th Cir. 2022) (noting that “when a district court dismisses a complaint or all claims without providing leave to amend ... the order dismissing the complaint is final and appealable”).
Plaintiff's attention is directed to the important notice on the following page.
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 835
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).