Opinion
C. A. 6:24-cv-03012-DCC-KFM
07-02-2024
Joshua Lynn Robinson, Plaintiff, v. Brittany D. Scott, Defendant.
REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
KEVIN F. MCDONALD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The plaintiff, a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.), this magistrate judge is authorized to review all pretrial matters in cases filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and submit findings and recommendations to the district court. The plaintiff's complaint was entered on the docket on May 13, 2024 (doc. 1). By order filed May 24, 2024, the plaintiff was given a specific time frame in which to bring his case into proper form for judicial screening (doc. 7). The plaintiff complied with the court's order, and the case is now in proper form for judicial screening. However, for the reasons that follow, it is recommended that this matter be dismissed.
ALLEGATIONS
The plaintiff, a pretrial detainee at the Greenville County Detention Center (the “Detention Center”) filed this action seeking money damages from the defendant (doc. 1). Of note, the plaintiff's allegations, in part, involve pending charges for 2 counts of domestic violence, first degree in the Greenville County General Sessions Court. See Greenville County Public Index, https://publicindex.sccourts.org/Greenville/PublicIndex/PISearch.aspx (enter the plaintiff's name and 2021A2320500775, 2021A2320500776) (last visited July 1, 2024). The charges were indicted by a grand jury in December 2022. Id. The plaintiff also has more recent charges that have not been indicted: two charges of resisting arrest (on two separate occasions), and a charge for breach of the peace. See Greenville County Public Index (enter the plaintiff's name and 2023A2330210443, 2024A2330202682, 2024A2330202683) (last visited July 1, 2024).
The plaintiff alleges violations of his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights for failure to enforce policy and execute state law from November 2021 to the present (doc. 1 at 4, 5). The plaintiff contends that he has sent the defendant more than 140 emails about his complaints and she has ignored them (id. at 5). He alleges that Ofc. Kimbler with the Greer Police Department conspired with his “wife” to falsify documents and have him arrested (id. at 6). The Easley Police Department also conspired with the plaintiff's exgirlfriend to keep the plaintiff from being around his daughter (id.). He further contends that a family safety plan he was convinced to agree to with the Department of Social Services (“DSS”) impaired his family relationships (id. at 7). The plaintiff also contends that officers acted improperly when he was arrested in March 2024 and bitten by a police K-9 (id.).
The plaintiff's alleged injuries include having his hand bitten by a police K-9 (id. at 8). For relief, the plaintiff seeks money damages (id.).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the in forma pauperis statute. This statute authorizes the District Court to dismiss a case if it is satisfied 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). Further, the plaintiff is a prisoner under the definition of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(c), and “seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Thus, even if the plaintiff had prepaid the full filing fee, this Court is charged with screening the plaintiff's lawsuit to identify cognizable claims or to dismiss the complaint if (1) it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
As a pro se litigant, the plaintiff's pleadings are accorded liberal construction and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by attorneys. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (per curiam). 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 cognizable in a federal district court. See Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 1990).
This complaint is filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which “‘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) (quoting Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n. 3 (1979)). A civil action under § 1983 “creates a private right of action to vindicate violations of ‘rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws' of the United States.” Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356, 361 (2012). To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege 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 the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
DISCUSSION
As noted above, the plaintiff filed the instant action pursuant to § 1983, seeking damages from the defendant. Nevertheless, as outlined below, the plaintiff's complaint is subject to summary dismissal. First, although the plaintiff alleges violations of his rights in the continued criminal prosecutions in the Greenville County General Sessions Court, it does not appear that he requests federal court interference with his pending criminal charges; thus, Younger abstention does not apply to this action. See Gilliam v. Foster, 75 F.3d 881, 903 (4th Cir. 1996) (noting that a federal court may not award injunctive relief that would affect pending state criminal proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances) (citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)).
The plaintiff's claims against Sol. Scott, an assistant solicitor in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in South Carolina, are subject to dismissal because Sol. Scott is entitled to prosecutorial immunity. As noted, the plaintiff's claims against Sol. Scott are that she has failed to enforce state law and has ignored more than 100 complaints he submitted to her (doc. 1 at 4, 5). Liberally construed, it also appears that the plaintiff asserts that Sol. Scott has acted improperly in not dismissing his pending criminal charges (see doc. 1). See Greenville County Public Index (enter the plaintiff's name and 2021A2320500775, 2021A2320500776, 2023A2330210443, 2024A2330202682, 2024A2330202683) (last visited July 1, 2024). However, prosecutors have absolute immunity from civil liability for activities in or connected with judicial proceedings such as criminal trials, bond hearings, bail hearings, grand jury proceedings, and pretrial motions hearings. Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 267-71 (1993); Dababnah v. Keller-Burnside, 208 F.3d 467 (4th Cir. 2000). The plaintiff's bare allegations of improperly denied or mishandled complaints are insufficient to overcome the immunity afforded to Sol. Scott. Additionally, the plaintiff has not alleged that Sol. Scott is responsible for the use of a K-9 when he was arrested (and injured his hand). See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009) (noting that liability under § 1983 “requires personal involvement”). As such, the plaintiff's claims against Sol. Scott are subject to summary dismissal.
RECOMMENDATION
The undersigned is of the opinion that the plaintiff cannot cure the defects identified above by amending the complaint. Therefore, the undersigned recommends that the district court dismiss this action with prejudice, without leave to amend, and without issuance and service of process. See Britt v. DeJoy, 49 F.4th 790 (4th Cir. 2022) (published) (noting that “when a district court dismisses a complaint or all claims without providing leave to amend . . . the order dismissing the complaint is final and appealable”). The attention of the parties is directed to the important notice on the next page.
The plaintiff is warned that if the United States District Judge assigned to this matter adopts this report and recommendation, the dismissal of this action for failure to state a claim could later be deemed a strike under the three-strikes rule. See Pitts v. South Carolina, 65 F.4th 141 (4th Cir. 2023).
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
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 committees 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
250 East North Street, Room 2300
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
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).