Opinion
C. A. 5:24-756-SAL-KDW
04-17-2024
Eliseo Santos, Plaintiff, v. Scotty Bodiford; Ronald Hollister; and Greenville County Detention Center, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
KAYMANI D. WEST, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Eliseo Santos (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, is a pre-trial detainee incarcerated in the Greenville County Detention Center. He filed this action alleging violations of his civil rights. 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.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff alleges his bail was originally set at $30,000 by a magistrate judge, and a general sessions judge raised the bail to $200,000, although he was not facing any additional charges and he was not represented by counsel. ECF No. 1-1 at 1. Plaintiff states this resulted in his extended stay in the detention center in harsh pretrial conditions. Id. Plaintiff claims he did not receive adequate medical attention. Id. Plaintiff alleges he has a seven-millimeter kidney stone, and the medical staff made him wait a month and a half, while he suffered, before the issue was addressed. ECF No. 1 at 6. Plaintiff states the hospital keeps sending him medical bills from his surgery. Id.
Plaintiff also claims he injured his knee while exercising, and he has not received adequate medical treatment for this injury, and he continues to suffer. Id.
On March 25, 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. 10. The order further advised Plaintiff he had until April 8, 2024, to file an amended complaint or otherwise cure the identified deficiencies in his pleadings. Id. Plaintiff did not file a response to the March 25 order.
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).
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.
1. Greenville County Detention Center
Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to state a claim against Greenville County Detention Center. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 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). Greenville County Detention Center is a collection of buildings, facilities, and grounds that do not act under the color of state law. See Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Serv., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978); Nelson v. Lexington Cnty. Det. Ctr., No. 8:10-2988-JMC, 2011 WL 2066551, at *1 (D.S.C. May 26, 2011) (finding that the plaintiff failed to establish that the Lexington County Detention Center, “as a building and not a person, is amenable to suit under § 1983”). Because Greenville County Detention Center is not a person amenable to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the undersigned recommends Plaintiff's claims against this defendant be summarily dismissed.
2. Excessive Bail
Plaintiff alleges Warden Scotty Bideford has violated his constitutional rights by inflicting excessive bail, however, Plaintiff's allegations concerning his bail are not properly before the court. ECF No. 1 at 4. In Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), the Supreme Court held that a federal court should not equitably interfere with state criminal proceedings except in the most narrow and extraordinary of circumstances. See also Gilliam v. Foster, 75 F.3d 881, 903 (4th Cir. 1996). The Younger Court noted that courts of equity should not act unless the moving party has no adequate remedy at law and will suffer irreparable injury if denied equitable relief. Younger, 401 U.S. at 43-44 (citation omitted). From Younger and its progeny, the Fourth Circuit has culled the following test to determine when abstention is appropriate: “(1) there are ongoing state judicial proceedings; (2) the proceedings implicate important state interests; and (3) there is an adequate opportunity to raise federal claims in the state proceedings.” Martin Marietta Corp. v. Maryland Comm'n on Human Relations, 38 F.3d 1392, 1396 (4th Cir. 1994) (citing Middlesex County Ethics Comm'n v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982)).
Applying these factors to this case, abstention is appropriate. Plaintiff is involved in an ongoing state criminal proceeding where he has the opportunity to present his claims challenging his unconstitutional bail. If this court were to make factual findings that Defendant acted improperly in setting Plaintiff's bail, the court would be interfering with a pending criminal state court proceeding. Further, the Supreme Court has noted that “the States' interest in administering their criminal justice systems free from federal interference is one of the most powerful of the considerations that should influence a court considering equitable types of relief.” Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986). The Younger abstention doctrine compels the court to abstain from exercising jurisdiction over Plaintiff's excessive bail claims.
3. County Administrator Ronald Hollister
Plaintiff claims he is receiving inadequate medical treatment for his kidney stones and knee injury. ECF No. 1. However, Plaintiff fails to explain how County Administrator Ronald Hollister was personally involved in denying him adequate medical treatment and therefore his Complaint contains insufficient factual allegations of constitutional wrongdoing or discriminatory actions attributable to this defendant. The undersigned recommends County Administrator Ronald Hollister be summarily dismissed from this action.
III. Conclusion and Recommendation
By order issued on March 25, 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 ORDERED.
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).