Opinion
C/A No. 4:20-2254-BHH-TER
08-07-2020
Don Lane Hill, Sr., #1489, Plaintiff, v. Bodiford, Jail Admin, Major Stowers, Capt. Pendergrass, Defendants.
Report and Recommendation
This is a civil action filed by a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and District of South Carolina Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e), the undersigned is authorized to review all pretrial matters in such pro se cases and to submit findings and recommendations to the District Court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e); 1915A (as soon as possible after docketing, district courts should review prisoner cases to determine whether they are subject to summary dismissal).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under established local procedure in this judicial district, a careful review has been made of Plaintiff's pro se complaint filed in this case. This review has been conducted pursuant to the procedural provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and in light of the following precedents: Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324-25 (1989); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); Nasim v. Warden, Md. House of Corr., 64 F.3d 951 (4th Cir. 1995); Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147 (4th Cir. 1978).
This complaint has been filed 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 the case upon a finding 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). 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. at 31. Under § 1915(e)(2)(B), a claim based on a meritless legal theory may be dismissed sua sponte. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989).
This court is required to liberally construe pro se complaints. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Such pro se complaints are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Id. ; Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). Even under this less stringent standard, however, the pro se complaint may be subject to summary dismissal. 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 plaintiff could prevail, it should do so, but a district court may not rewrite a complaint to include claims that were never presented, construct the plaintiff's legal arguments for him, or conjure up questions never squarely presented to the court. Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985); Small v. Endicott, 998 F.2d 411 (7th Cir. 1993); Barnett v. Hargett, 174 F.3d 1128 (10th Cir. 1999). 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. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 390-91 (4th Cir.1990) (The "special judicial solicitude" with which a [court] should view such pro se complaints does not transform the court into an advocate.).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff was informed via court order of deficiencies in his Complaint that would subject his Complaint to summary dismissal and given an opportunity to file an Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 7). Plaintiff did not file an Amended Complaint; Plaintiff's Complaint remains subject to summary dismissal.
Plaintiff alleges he fell and hurt his knee and his left side and back still hurt at times. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff alleges he was not seen by a doctor in medical but was seen by a nurse. Plaintiff was given Tylenol and told he was okay. "That was very wrong of him to do me that way." (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff sues detention center employees only in their official capacity. (ECF No. 1).
Plaintiff's Complaint is subject to summary dismissal based on Eleventh Amendment immunity because he sues Detention Center employees all in their official capacities only. ECF No. 1 at 2-3. A county detention center is under the control of the county sheriff's office, and such is considered a state agency. See Williams v. Dorchester Cty. Det. Ctr., 987 F. Supp. 2d 690, 694 (D.S.C. 2013); Gulledge v. Smart, 691 F. Supp. 947, 954-55 (D.S.C. 1988). Thus, defendants would be state officers, not county employees, and would be entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity when sued in official capacity only in federal court. See Cash v. Thomas, No. 6:12-cv-1278-MGL, 2013 WL 3804375, at *7 (D.S.C. July 19, 2013). The Eleventh Amendment provides that "[t]he Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." The United States Supreme Court has long held that the Eleventh Amendment also precludes suits against a state by one of its own citizens. See Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 662-63 (1974). This immunity extends to suits against agents and instrumentalities of the state. Cash v. Granville Cnty. Bd. of Ed., 242 F.3d 219, 222 (4th Cir. 2001). Because all four Defendants were agents or employees of an arm of the State of South Carolina when acting in their official capacities, they are not a "persons" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989) ( "[N]either a state nor its officials acting in their official capacities are 'persons' under § 1983."). A state cannot, without its consent, be sued in a District Court of the United States by one of its own citizens upon the claim that the case is one that arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States. Edelman, 415 U.S. at 663. The State of South Carolina has not consented to be sued in this case. S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-20(e). Defendants, in their official capacities, are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.
In May 2020, in an unpublished opinion, in a fee paid, non-prisoner case, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals noted the court could not raise immunity sua sponte. Glenn v. Marsh, 806 Fed. Appx. 252 (mem)(May 28, 2020)(appealed from 6:18-cv-1609-DCC, D.S.C.). However, Plaintiff here is not proceeding as such and is proceeding as a pretrial detainee under § 1915 in forma pauperis review standards, which requires dismissal if Plaintiff "seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii)("shall dismiss"). Therefore, review of immunity is appropriate here.
Further, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim of constitutional magnitude. Mere negligence, mistake or difference of medical opinion in the provision of medical care to prisoners do not rise to an Eighth Amendment deprivation under the Estelle standard. See Bowring v. Godwin, 551 F.2d 44, 48 (4th Cir. 1977); Lee v. Downs, 470 F. Supp. 188, 192 (E.D. Va.1979); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)("a complaint that a physician has been negligent in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not state a valid claim of medical mistreatment under the Eighth Amendment. Medical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner."). Moreover, in medical needs cases, the Farmer test, Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832-35 (1994), requires a plaintiff demonstrate that a medical condition/need is objectively sufficiently serious. An official must be shown to be deliberately indifferent to a "serious" medical need that has either "been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or ... is so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor's attention." Iko v. Shreve, 535 F.3d 225, 241 (4th Cir. 2008).
Moreover, it is unclear how each of the defendants are connected to Plaintiff's allegations. In order to assert a plausible § 1983 claim against any particular state actor, a "causal connection" must exist between the conduct alleged by the plaintiff and the particular defendant named in the suit. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S.159, 166 (1985); Rizzo v. Good, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72 (1976) (a § 1983 plaintiff must show that he suffered a specific injury resulting from a specific defendant's specific conduct and must show an affirmative link between the injury and that conduct); Vinnedge v. Gibbs, 550 F.2d 926, 928 (4th Cir.1977) (for an individual to be liable under § 1983, the Plaintiff must show that the defendant named acted personally in the deprivation of the plaintiff's rights). Plaintiff here must demonstrate that the official personally caused or played a role in causing the deprivation of a federal right. See Graham, 473 U.S. at 166 and Harris v. City of Va. Beach, 11 Fed. App'x 212, 215 (4th Cir.2001) (affirming dismissal of the plaintiff's claim against five defendants when the plaintiff did not allege any of the defendants were personally involved in the alleged deprivation of his civil rights). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "demands more than an unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Id. Defendants will not know how to respond to conclusory allegations, especially when "the pleadings mentioned no specific time, place, or person involved." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 565 n. 10. (2007). Complaints should contain facts in regard to who did what to whom and when. Id. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as to the defendants named.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the District Court dismiss the Complaint in this case with prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has found where the district court already afforded an opportunity to amend, the district court has the discretion to afford another opportunity to amend or can "dismiss the complaint with prejudice, thereby rendering the dismissal order a final, appealable order." Workman v. Morrison Healthcare, 724 Fed. Appx. 280 (4th Cir. June 4, 2018)(Table); Knox v. Plowden, 724 Fed. Appx. 263 (4th Cir. May 31, 2018)(Table)(on remand, district judge dismissed the action with prejudice); Mitchell v. Unknown, 2018 WL 3387457 (4th Cir. July 11, 2018)(unpublished). Thus, the undersigned recommends the dismissal in this case be with prejudice, as Plaintiff has had an opportunity to amend and has failed to cure deficiencies by filing an amended complaint.
s/Thomas E. Rogers, III
Thomas E. Rogers, III
United States Magistrate Judge August 7, 2020
Florence, South Carolina
Plaintiff's attention is directed to the important notice on the next 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 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).