Opinion
C.A. 4:23-04662-TMC-TER
11-07-2023
Travis Little, PLAINTIFF, v. Marcus Rhodes, Julia Murphery, Alex Petkousek, Dr. Boatwright, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Thomas E. Rogers, III, United States Magistrate Judge.
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).
Plaintiff's 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's action is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff was previously notified of deficiencies in his original complaint and given an opportunity to amend the complaint. Plaintiff availed himself of that opportunity and filed an Amended Complaint. Plaintiff was given another opportunity to correct deficiencies that were present in the Amended Complaint; the documents sent in response to that order continue with deficiencies and the Amended Complaint, considering the proposed documents at (ECF No. 16) is subject to summary dismissal.
Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 “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) (internal quotation and citation omitted). A legal action under § 1983 allows “a party who has been deprived of a federal right under the color of state law to seek relief.” City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., 526 U.S. 687, 707 (1999). Under § 1983, a plaintiff must establish 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 color of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Plaintiff alleges his rights to proper medical treatment were violated.(ECF No. 9 at 4).
Because Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee, “this claim is governed by the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment rather than the eighth amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.” Martin v. Gentile, 849 F.2d 863, 870 (4th Cir. 1988).
Plaintiff alleges he acquired a tooth infection and rash all over body and states each defendant did nothing to help him with his problem. (ECF No. 9 at 8). Plaintiff alleges the dentist pulled teeth while Plaintiff had an abscess resulting in headaches. (ECF No. 9 at 5). Plaintiff requests compensation as relief. (ECF No. 9 at 8).
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint(ECF No. 9) sued all defendants in their official capacity only. On October 19, 2023, the court put Plaintiff on notice that if Defendants were sued in their official capacity only that his action would be subject to summary dismissal and offered Plaintiff another opportunity to correct the Amended Complaint. Plaintiff returned pages 1-3 in the same condition they were sent-with only official capacity marked. (ECF No. 16). Since Plaintiff seeks only monetary damages, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint(with consideration of ECF No. 16) is subject to summary dismissal based on Eleventh Amendment immunity because he sues Detention Center employees all in their official capacities only. 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, 95455 (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 “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, when sued in their official capacities for liability for monetary damages, are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment and Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as to these Defendants.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the District Court dismiss Plaintiff's claims under § 1983 with prejudice under § 1915(e) and § 1915A and without issuance and service of process.
It is recommended that this action be dismissed without a third opportunity to amend. See Britt v. DeJoy, 45 F.4th 790 (4th Cir. 2022).
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).