Opinion
C. A. 1:23-4798-CMC-SVH
06-18-2024
Johnnie Frazier, Plaintiff, v. Officer Poiteview, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
SHIVA V. HODGES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
An inmate brings claims against a South Carolina Department of Corrections (“SCDC”) employee, claiming the officer slammed the flap located on the cell door on the inmate's hand. Officer Isiah Pointevien (“Defendant”), a former correctional officer at Perry Correctional Institution, seeks dismissal of Plaintiff's claims asserted against him.
The undersigned employs the correct spelling of Defendant's name and directs the clerk of court to correct the caption of the case accordingly.
Johnnie Frazier (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this case on September 22, 2023, on claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § i983. This matter is before the court on Defendant's motions to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint. [ECF Nos. i2, 33]. Pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. i975), the court advised Plaintiff of the dismissal procedures and the possible consequences if he failed to respond adequately to Defendant's motion. [ECF No. 13, 34]. Having been briefed [ECF No. 36], the motions are ripe for disposition.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.), this matter has been referred to the undersigned for all pretrial proceedings. After carefully considering the record, the undersigned recommends the district judge grants Defendant's motions.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff alleges his Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated on August 31, 2020, when Defendant “closed no contact flap” or “slammed no contact flap” “on my right hand causing carpel tunnel syndrome.” [ECF No. 1 at 4 (spelling altered)]. In his inmate grievance concerning this issue, he states as follows:
On 8-31-2020 Officer Poitbien and Nurse Heinritch came to D-Y-14 for pill line and vitals check. The nurse gave me my pills and asked if I would like to have my vitals checked and I said yes so I put my arm in the flap and Officer Poitbien told me to put my arm further in the flap and the nurse told me it was good. I told the officer to do his job and let the nurse do hers. CO Poitbien then quickly shut the top part of the flap and then slammed the other flap on my hand and walked away with the nurse. Now my hand is numb and I can't feel my fingers.[ECF No. 1-1 at 8 (spelling altered)].
Plaintiff also has submitted in conjunction with his complaint numerous inmate grievance forms and a declaration concerning incidents that appear unrelated to his complaint, occurring on January 24, 2020, and January 23, 2021. [See ECF No. 1-1].
II. Discussion
A. Standard on Motion to Dismiss
To survive a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). The court is “not required to accept as true the legal conclusions set forth in a plaintiff's complaint.” Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 244 (4th Cir. 1999). Indeed, “[t]he presence of a few conclusory legal terms does not insulate a complaint from dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) when the facts alleged in the complaint cannot support” the legal conclusion. Young v. City of Mount Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 577 (4th Cir. 2001). Furthermore, in analyzing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a court may consider “documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial notice.” Tellabs. Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007).
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). When a federal court is 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 which set forth a claim currently cognizable in a federal district court. Weller v. Dept of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 390-91 (4th Cir. 1990).
B. Analysis
As argued by Defendant, Plaintiff's complaint is subject to dismissal based on the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations for an action brought pursuant to § 1983 is three years. See Williams v. City of Sumter Police Dep't, C/A No. 3:09-2486-CMC-PJG, 2011 WL 723148, at *3 (D.S.C. Feb. 23, 2011) (concluding the plaintiff had three years within which to file his § 1983 action). Here, Plaintiff alleges the relevant event occurred on August 31, 2020, but he did not mail his complaint until September 22, 2023. [See ECF No. 1-2 at 1]. The undersigned agrees with Defendant that to the extent that Plaintiff has attempted to assert additional claims unrelated to his complaint, those claims are not properly before the court. [See ECF Nos. 12, 33].
The law is well-settled on this question of statutes of limitation for actions brought under § 1983. While a statute of limitations is not contained within the text of § 1983, the Supreme Court has decided that the state's general statute of limitations for personal injury claims applies, even if the state has different statutes of limitation for intentional torts. Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 253, 249-50 (1989) (“We accordingly hold that where state law provides multiple statutes of limitation for personal injury actions, courts considering § 1983 claims should borrow the general or residual statute for personal injury actions.”); see also Owens v. Baltimore City State's Attorneys Office, 767 F.3d 379 (4th Cir. 2014) (“[T]o determine the timely filing of a § 1983 claim, courts borrow the statute of limitations from the most analogous statelaw cause of action. For § 1983 suits, that cause of action is a personal-injury suit.”). South Carolina law allows three years for a plaintiff to bring a personal injury action. S.C. Code Ann. § 15-3-530 (5). Therefore, the statute of limitations for § 1983 claims arising in South Carolina is three years, regardless of the underlying allegations of the § 1983 claim. See Hamilton v. Middleton, C/A No. 4:02-1952-23, 2003 WL 23851098, at *4 (D.S.C. June 20, 2003).
Because Petitioner is incarcerated, he benefits from the “prison mailbox rule.” Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). The complaint includes a date stamp reflecting it was received by the prison mailroom on September 22, 2023. [ECF No. 1-2].
III. Conclusion and Recommendation
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends the district judge grant Defendant's motions to dismiss. [ECF Nos. 12, 33].
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).