Opinion
C. A. : 3:24-760-JD-KDW
06-05-2024
Lavern Justin Reed, Plaintiff, v. Jeffcoat Richardson; Secoya Tucker; Charles Dulaney; and Emily Hampton, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
KAYMANI D. WEST, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Lavern Justin Reed (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this Complaint alleging a violation of his civil rights by Richland County Police Department officers Jeffcoat Richardson (“Richardson”) and Emily Hampton (“Hampton”), Richland County Paramedic Secoya Tucker (“Tucker”), and Richland County Public Defender Charles Dulaney (“Dulaney”). Pursuant to the provisions of 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. For the reasons that follow, the undersigned recommends the district judge dismiss the Complaint in this case.
I. Procedural Background
Plaintiff alleges Richardson, Hampton, and Tucker were called to his home for a domestic in progress on October 29, 2022. ECF No. 1-2 at 6. Plaintiff alleges Tucker gave false claims and statements, vandalized Plaintiff's property, and destroyed Plaintiff's clothes when Plaintiff was arrested. ECF No. 1-2 at 7; ECF No. 18 at 1. Plaintiff says he filed charges against Tucker a few weeks before the domestic incident, and she decided to attack Plaintiff again and he called the police. Id. Plaintiff claims Richardson and Hampton arrested him without knowledge of all of the facts, and they made a false police report to have Plaintiff arrested. ECF No. 1-2 at 6. Plaintiff contends Richardson lied on his affidavit because Tucker was involved, and everything was recorded on Richardson's bodycam. Id. Plaintiff says Richardson committed perjury as he said the knife on the scene was the knife used in the incident. ECF No. 18 at 2. Plaintiff says Richardson also lied about Plaintiff's actions toward the victim as the victim's statement differed from the accused's actions. Id. Plaintiff claims Hampton and Tucker did not protect Plaintiff from being abused, and arrested Plaintiff without probable cause. Id. Plaintiff says the entire household was involved and saw what happened. ECF No. 1-2 at 6. Plaintiff contends Dulaney gave him ineffective assistance of counsel the entire time he represented Plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff claims Dulaney insisted he take a plea or go to trial just to cause Plaintiff stress and harass him, instead of seeking remedies to get Plaintiff out of jail or have the charges dropped. Id. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. Id. at 9.
On May 3, 2024, the court issued an order notifying Plaintiff his Complaint was subject to summary dismissal because he failed to allege sufficient factual allegations to state a claim. ECF No. 23. The order further advised Plaintiff he had until May 17, 2024, to file an amended complaint or otherwise cure the identified deficiencies in his pleadings. Id. Plaintiff did not file a response to the May 3 order.
I. 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).
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). 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. Nevertheless, 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).
B. Analysis
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). Although the court must liberally construe a pro se complaint, the United States Supreme Court has made it clear that 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.
To establish a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim based on a Fourth Amendment violation for false arrest, a plaintiff must show that a seizure was effected without probable cause and that the legal process terminated in his favor. See Massey v. Ojaniit, 759 F.3d 343, 356 (4th Cir. 2014); Brooks v. City of Winston-Salem, 85 F.3d 178, 183 (4th Cir. 1996). Although Plaintiff alleges he was falsely arrested, his Complaint provides insufficient facts to challenge the validity of his arrest. Plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient facts about his arrest, nor has Plaintiff shown why his arrest was unlawful. Plaintiff has also not alleged that his legal process was terminated in his favor. The undersigned recommends Plaintiff's false arrest claims be summarily dismissed.
As to Plaintiff's allegation about the inadequate legal representation provided by Dulaney, Plaintiff fails to state a claim. An attorney, whether retained, court-appointed, or a public defender, does not act under color of state law, which is a jurisdictional prerequisite for any civil action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 317-24 & nn. 8-16 (1981) (public defender); Hallv. Quillen, 631 F.2d 1154, 1155-56 & nn. 2-3 (4th Cir.1980) (court-appointed attorney). The undersigned recommends Plaintiff's claims against Dulaney be summarily dismissed.
III. Conclusion and Recommendation
By order issued on May 3, 2024, the undersigned provided Plaintiff an opportunity to correct the defects identified in his Complaint and further warned Plaintiff that if he failed to timely file an amended complaint or failed to cure the identified deficiencies, the undersigned would recommend to the district court that the action be dismissed without leave for further amendment. Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint within the time provided. Accordingly, in addition to the reasons discussed herein, the undersigned recommends the district court dismiss this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
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
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).