Opinion
C. A. 6:23-cv-05799-TMC-KFM
02-08-2024
Arick R. Evans, Plaintiff, v. Captain Michael Rasar, Sgt. Christopher James, Defendants.[1]
REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Kevin F. McDonald, United States Magistrate Judge
The plaintiff, a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.), this magistrate judge is authorized to review all pretrial matters in cases filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and submit findings and recommendations to the district court.
The plaintiff's complaint was entered on the docket on November 13, 2023 (doc. 1). By order filed December 6, 2023, the plaintiff was informed that his complaint was subject to summary dismissal because it failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and that he could attempt to cure the defects identified in his complaint by filing an amended complaint within 14 days (doc. 10). The plaintiff was informed that if he failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise cure the deficiencies outlined in the order, the undersigned would recommend that his claims be dismissed (id. at 4-5). On January 24, 2024, the plaintiff's amended complaint was entered on the docket (doc. 22). Having reviewed the plaintiff's amended complaint, the undersigned is of the opinion that the plaintiff's excessive force claim against defendant Sgt. James is sufficient to survive screening, and service will be recommended as to Sgt. James on that claim. However, the remainder of the plaintiff's claims in the amended complaint fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; thus, they are subject to summary dismissal as outlined below.
ALLEGATIONS
This is a § 1983 action filed by a pretrial detainee regarding an incident at the Barnwell County Detention Center (“the Detention Center”) (doc. 22). The plaintiff alleges violations of his First, Eighth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendment Rights (id. at 4). The plaintiff alleges that on August 9, 2023, he was held down by Sgt. James and that Sgt. James choked and hit the plaintiff (id. at 5, 6-7). The plaintiff contends that he told Capt. Rasar about the attack after it happened, but his grievances regarding the incident were denied (id.). The plaintiff's alleged injuries include a knee that pops out of joint and a sore throat (id. at 7). For relief, the plaintiff seeks money damages (id.).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the in forma pauperis statute. This statute authorizes the District Court to dismiss a case if it is satisfied that the action “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” is “frivolous or malicious,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Further, the plaintiff is a prisoner under the definition of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(c), and “seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Thus, even if the plaintiff had prepaid the full filing fee, this Court is charged with screening the plaintiff's lawsuit to identify cognizable claims or to dismiss the complaint if (1) it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
As a pro se litigant, the plaintiff's pleadings are accorded liberal construction and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by attorneys. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (per curiam). 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, 391 (4th Cir. 1990).
This complaint is filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 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)). A civil action under § 1983 “creates a private right of action to vindicate violations of ‘rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws' of the United States.” Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356, 361 (2012). To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (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).
DISCUSSION
As noted above, the plaintiff filed the instant action pursuant to § 1983, seeking damages from the defendants. Additionally, as indicated, the plaintiff's excessive force claim against defendant Sgt. James is sufficient to survive screening, and service will be recommended as to Sgt. James on that claim. The remainder of the plaintiff's claims, as outlined below, are subject to summary dismissal.
Here, the plaintiff seeks damages from Capt. Rasar because he is in charge of the Detention Center based on supervisory liability; however, the doctrines of vicarious liability and respondeat superior are generally not applicable to § 1983 suits. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676 (“Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to . . . § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official's own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.”); Polk Cnty., 454 U.S. at 325 (noting that “Section 1983 will not support a claim based on a respondeat superior theory of liability” (emphasis in original)). Indeed, to allege a plausible claim requires a showing that the supervisor (1) had actual or constructive knowledge that his/her subordinates engaged in conduct posing a pervasive or unreasonable risk of constitutional injury; (2) the supervisor's response to the knowledge was “so inadequate as to show deliberate indifference to or tacit authorization of the alleged offensive practices;” and (3) an affirmative causal link between the inaction by the supervisor and the particular constitutional injury suffered by the plaintiff. Green v. Beck, 539 Fed.Appx. 78, 80 (4th Cir. 2013). Here, although the plaintiff alleges that he informed Capt. Rasar about the incident with Sgt. James after it happened, he has not alleged that Capt. Rasar was aware before the incident in question that Sgt. James was engaging in conduct that posed a risk to detainees, such as the plaintiff. Further, the plaintiff has not alleged a causal link between Capt. Rasar's knowledge of the incident in question and the plaintiff's alleged injuries of a sore throat and knee pain. Moreover, to the extent the plaintiff asserts that Capt. Rasar violated his rights because his grievances were denied, it is well-settled that an inmate's access to and participation in a prison's grievance process is not constitutionally protected. See Taylor v. Lang, 483 Fed.Appx. 855, 858 (4th Cir. 2012); Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 75 (4th Cir. 1994). As such, the plaintiff's amended complaint fails to state a claim against Capt. Rasar; thus, his claims against Capt. Rasar are subject to summary dismissal. See Fordv. Stirling, C/A No. 2:17-02390-MGL, 2017 WL 4803648, at *2 (D.S.C. Oct. 25, 2017); London v. Maier, C/A No. 0:10-00434-RBH, 2010 WL 1428832, at *2 (D.S.C. Apr. 7, 2010).
RECOMMENDATION
As noted above, this case will go forward with respect to the plaintiff's excessive force claim against defendant Sgt. James. However, with respect to the plaintiff's remaining claims, despite filing an amended complaint, the plaintiff has not cured the deficiencies identified in the order dated December 6, 2023 (doc. 10). As such, the undersigned recommends that the district court dismiss the plaintiff's remaining claims and defendants (other than the excessive force claim against defendant Sgt. James) with prejudice, without further leave to amend, and without issuance and service of process because the plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies identified in the order issued December 6, 2023. See Britt v. DeJoy, 45 F.4th 790, 791 (4th Cir. 2022) (published) (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”). The attention of the parties is directed to the important notice on the following page.
That order warned the plaintiff that if he failed to file an amended complaint or failed to cure the deficiencies identified therein, the undersigned would recommend to the district court that his claims be dismissed with prejudice and without leave for further amendment (doc. 10 at 4-5).
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 committees 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 250 East North Street, Room 2300 Greenville, South Carolina 29601
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).