Opinion
C. A. 5:24-564-JFA-KDW
04-17-2024
Donathan Studyvance, Plaintiff, v. Cherokee County Sheriff Steve Mueller, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
KAYMANI D. WEST UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Donathan Studyvance (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, is an inmate incarcerated in the Cherokee County Detention Center. Plaintiff filed this action alleging violations of his civil rights by Cherokee County Sheriff Steve Mueller. 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 states he is sleeping on the floor on a mat. ECF No. 1 at 5. Plaintiff also claims he was served bad food with bugs in it. Id. at 6. Plaintiff contends the overcrowding and the living conditions in the detention center are not right. Id. at 5.
On March 1, 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. 16. The order further advised Plaintiff he had until March 16, 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 1 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.
The undersigned finds Plaintiff's conditions of confinement claims are subject to summary dismissal as Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to establish a violation of his constitutional rights. The Fourteenth Amendment proscribes incarcerating a pretrial detainee in conditions that “amount to punishment, or otherwise violate the Constitution.” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979). Conditions constitute punishment when there is “an ‘expressed intent' to punish” or “a lack of a reasonable relationship ‘to a legitimate nonpunitive governmental objective, from which a punitive intent may be inferred.'” Hill v. Nicodemus, 979 F.2d 987, 991 (4th Cir. 1992) (quoting Martin v. Gentile, 849 F.2d 863, 870 (4th Cir. 1988)). To demonstrate that conditions of confinement constitute cruel and unusual punishment, “[an inmate] must (1) establish that prison officials acted with ‘deliberate indifference' and (2) prove extreme deprivations of basic human needs.” Smith v. Ozmint, 578 F.3d 246, 255 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Williams v. Benjamin, 77 F.3d 756, 761 (4th Cir. 1996)). To show an extreme deprivation, a prisoner “must produce evidence of a serious or significant physical or emotional injury resulting from the challenged conditions,” Strickler v. Waters, 989 F.2d 1375, 1381 (4th Cir. 1993), or demonstrate a substantial risk of such serious harm resulting from the prisoner's unwilling exposure to the challenged conditions, see Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33-35 (1993).
As to Plaintiff's claims about sleeping on a mat, Plaintiff has not alleged he has suffered any injuries as a result of the challenged conditions. Therefore, this claim is subject to summary dismissal. See Strickler, 989 F.2d at 1379-81 (holding “plaintiff must produce evidence of a serious or significant physical or emotional injury resulting from the challenged conditions”); Hines v. Sheahan, 845 F.Supp. 1265, 1269 (N.D. Ill. 1994) (“requiring an inmate to sleep on a mattress on the floor does not in itself rise to the level of a constitutional violation”); Smalls v. Myers, No. 9:05-2995-GRA-GCK, 2006 WL 1454779, at *7 (D.S.C. May 24, 2006) (“Being forced to sleep on the floor or on an uncomfortable mattress, in and of itself, does not rise to a level of a constitutional violation.”). Additionally, Plaintiff has not alleged anything other than an isolated or short-lived problem with his food, and therefore his claims are insufficient to state a cognizable claim. See Hamm v. DeKalb Cnty., 774 F.2d 1567, 1575 (11th Cir. 1985) (“The fact that the food occasionally contains foreign objects or sometimes is served cold, while unpleasant, does not amount to a constitutional deprivation.”); Bedell v. Angelone, No. 2:01cv780, 2003 WL 24054709, at *14 (E.D. Va. Oct.3, 2003) (holding that being served rotten food is unpleasant and unfortunate but does not state a claim when no serious deprivation occurred). Plaintiff's complaint should be summarily dismissed.
III. Conclusion and Recommendation
By order issued on March 1, 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.