Opinion
C. A. 4:22-1434-JD-KDW
06-01-2022
Shun Larel Daniels, Plaintiff, v. Russell J. Young, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Kaymani D. West, United States Magistrate Judge
Shun Larel Daniels (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this Amended Complaint alleging violations of his constitutional rights by Pamplico Police Officer Russell J. Young (“Officer Young”). Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. 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 Amended Complaint in this case.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
On May 13, 2022, the court issued an order notifying Plaintiff his Complaint was subject to summary dismissal because he failed to allege sufficient facts to state a claim. ECF No. 9. The order further advised Plaintiff he had until May 27, 2022, to file an amended complaint or otherwise cure the identified deficiencies in the pleadings. Id. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on May 25, 2022. ECF No. 13.
Plaintiff states he was arrested on January 24, 2022 and transferred to the Florence County Detention Center where he was served with several warrants. ECF No. 13 at 7. Plaintiff alleges he was identified as a potential suspect in some criminal activity. Id. Plaintiff claims his Rule 5 discovery stated Officer Young presented a single photograph of Plaintiff to an alleged witness to criminal activity. Id. Plaintiff claims he was nowhere near the criminal activity as claimed by the witness. Id. Plaintiff contends his photo was the only one showed to the witness, and the witness identified Plaintiff and the witness “assumed” Plaintiff was the perpetrator. Id. at 8.
II. Discussion
A. Standard of Review
Plaintiff filed this Amended 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
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). Although the court must liberally construe a pro se complaint, the United States Supreme Court has made it clear that 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 matters, 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.
Plaintiffs claim that he is being wrongfully held in jail is akin to a Fourth Amendment unreasonable seizure/malicious prosecution-type claim. ECF No. 13. For a plaintiff to state a plausible § 1983 claim for an unreasonable seizure of his person in violation of the Fourth Amendment, the defendant must have “seized [plaintiff] pursuant to legal process that was not supported by probable cause and . . . the criminal proceedings [must have] terminated in [plaintiffs] favor.” Brooks v. City of Winston-Salem, 85 F.3d 178, 183-84 (4th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff indicates his criminal charges are pending and therefore, he is not able to show a favorable termination of the criminal proceedings. See McCormick v. Wright, No. 2:10-00033-RBH-RSC, 2010 WL 565303, at *3 (D.S.C. Feb. 17, 2010) (“Plaintiff has certainly not alleged the element that the state criminal charges against him have been resolved in his favor so a [illegal seizure] claim appears to be premature.”). The undersigned recommends Plaintiffs Amended Complaint be summarily dismissed.
III. Conclusion and Recommendation
By order issued on May 13, 2022, the undersigned gave Plaintiff an opportunity to correct the defects in his Complaint and further warned Plaintiff that if he failed to cure the identified deficiencies, the undersigned would recommend to the district court that the action be dismissed without leave for further amendment. As discussed herein, Plaintiffs Amended Complaint fails to correct the deficiencies, and like the original Complaint, fails to state a claim. The undersigned recommends the district court dismiss this action without prejudice. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc'y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 630 (4th Cir. 2015)).
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
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).