Opinion
C/A 5:23-6945-MGL-SVH
01-31-2024
Jerome S. Garcia, Plaintiff, v. Howard Young; Vernetia Dozier; and Tiffany Hardy, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Shiva V. Hodges, United States Magistrate Judge
Jerome S. Garcia (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Orangeburg County Detention Center (“OCDC”), Orangeburg County Sheriff's Department (“OCSD”), Orangeburg County, and Orangeburg County Sheriff Thomas Summers (“Summers”) (collectively “Defendants”). Pursuant to 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.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff alleges he was housed in a two-man cell in OCDC with two other inmates. [ECF No. 14 at 17-18]. He also claims he was known to have high blood pressure and was pre-diabetic. He alleges the cell did not have lights or running water and that the staff ignored his and his cellmates' complaints and who only came in to provide food. Id. Plaintiff alleges on the third day without water, he began vomiting, was unable to eat and drink, and he lost consciousness. Plaintiff claims his cellmates clogged the toilets to flood the entire pods because they were angry that the guards were ignoring them. Id. at 18. Plaintiff claims they were never given cleaning supplies and it was unhygienic. However, Plaintiff states that once the pod was flooded, he was rushed to medical and was placed on an IV drip for the day. Plaintiff claims the medical staff “seemed to panic[] and tried to claim I had Covid 19” rather than having been denied water. Id. at 18.
After receiving the IV, Plaintiff says he was placed in a cell with access to water, but was not provided access to showers, clean clothes, or communication with staff. Id. at 19. Plaintiff alleges the staff claimed the lockdown was because Plaintiff had Covid, but he states he was not testing positive for Covid. Id.
During his time in OCDC custody, Plaintiff was made a trustee working in the kitchen preparing food for the jail staff and inmates. Id. at 20. Plaintiff also claims he made FOIA requests for tort surety insurance policies, but his requests were ignored, and he claims he cannot exhaust his state tort claims without the requested information. Id.
II. Discussion
A. Standard of Review
Plaintiff filed his 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
1. No Supervisory Liability Under § 1983
The doctrine of supervisory liability is generally inapplicable to § 1983 suits, such that an employer or supervisor is not liable for the acts of his employees, absent an official policy or custom that results in illegal action. See Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978); Fisher v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Authority, 690 F.2d 1133, 1142-43 (4th Cir. 1982). The Supreme Court explains that “[b]ecause vicarious liability is inapplicable to Bivens and § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official's own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676; see Slakan v. Porter, 737 F.2d 368, 372-74 (4th Cir. 1984) (finding officials may be held liable for the acts of their subordinates, if the official is aware of a pervasive, unreasonable risk of harm from a specified source and fails to take corrective action as a result of deliberate indifference or tacit authorization). Because Plaintiff fails to allege any specific actions or inactions against Young, Young is entitled to summary dismissal. Plaintiff's only allegations involving Hardy are that she falsely recorded that he had Covid-19, which is not a violation of the Constitution.Therefore, Hardy is also subject to summary dismissal.
Although Plaintiff alleges state tort claims, this court has to first determine whether he has alleged claims that give this court subject matter jurisdiction. If Plaintiff fails to establish subject matter jurisdiction, the court will not have supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims.
2. Dozier
Plaintiff's claims against Dozier appear to be related to Dozier's alleged refusal or failure to provide Plaintiff with “Tort Surety Insurance policies.” [ECF No. 14 at 22]. Plaintiff claims he needs these documents to exhaust his state tort claims. Plaintiff alleges “Captain Dozier returned emails claiming I could pick up my requested information from March 2022 and she failed to produce the required surety policy, and requested material according to the State tort act. This denial is in fact the very Insurance policy violation, and a state crime.” Plaintiff's allegations against Dozier are not violations of his Constitutional rights and are therefore not cognizable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983.Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Dozier.
Plaintiff argues he is not required to adjudicate his claims in state court because the “infringements happened to the Plaintiff's Protected federal rights ....” [ECF No. 14 at 29]. However, Plaintiff has not alleged that a specific defendant in this case violated any of his Constitutional rights.
III. Conclusion and Recommendation
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends this matter be summarily dismissed. Because Plaintiff has previously been provided an opportunity to amend, the undersigned recommends the dismissal be without leave for further amendment.
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).