Opinion
Civil Action 6:18-cv-2923-TLW-KFM
02-05-2019
Michael Darnell Thomas, Plaintiff, v. Warden Stephon, A/W Peeples, Cpt. Carter, Defendants.
REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Kevin F. McDonald United States Magistrate Judge
The plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. The plaintiff is a prisoner in the South Carolina Department of Corrections (“SCDC”) at the Broad River Correctional Institution (doc. 1 at 2). Pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(B), and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C., the undersigned is authorized to review all pretrial matters in cases filed under Section 1983.
The plaintiff filed his case against defendants on October 25, 2018 (doc. 1). By order filed on January 14, 2019, the plaintiff was informed that his complaint was subject to summary dismissal because it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted (doc. 15). In the same order, the plaintiff was informed that he could attempt to cure the defects in his complaint by filing an amended complaint within fourteen days (doc. 15 at 4). The plaintiff was informed that if he failed to file an amended complaint or cure the deficiencies outlined in the order, the undersigned would recommend that his claims be dismissed (doc. 15 at 4). The plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint within the time provided; accordingly, the undersigned recommends it be dismissed.
BACKGROUND AND ALLEGATIONS
The plaintiff contends that the defendants violated his 8th Amendment rights by denying him recreation time and locking him in his cell for 24 hours each day since he was transferred to Broad River Correctional Institution on June 21, 2018 (doc. 1 at 4-5). The plaintiff alleges that confinement to his cell 24 hours each day has caused bed soreness, muscle atrophy, and sinusitis (id. at 6). For his relief, the plaintiff seeks monetary damages, to be removed from S.D. custody and returned to general population, to have all restitution cleared from his “EH Cooper” account, and to be placed on the mental health dorm to serve the rest of his sentence (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). 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
The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are subject to dismissal because the plaintiff makes no factual allegations of personal wrongdoing against the defendants (see doc. 1). The plaintiff's complaint alleges that his 8th Amendment rights have been violated because he has been held in his cell for 24 hours each day since his transfer on June 21, 2018 (id. at 4-5). However, the plaintiff's only mention of the named defendants is in the section of the complaint concerning exhaustion of administrative remedies (id. at 8-9). Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that he wrote defendants Cpt. Carter and A/W Peeples a staff request to which he received no response (id. at 8). Further, the plaintiff makes no allegations against Warden Stephon whatsoever. Accordingly, the aforementioned allegations are not sufficient to state a plausible claim against the defendants. Weller v. Dep't of Social Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990) (noting dismissal is proper where there were no allegations against defendants).
Further, to the extent the plaintiff seeks to hold the defendants liable in their supervisory capacities, the doctrines of vicarious liability and respondeat superior are generally not applicable to § 1983 suits. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009) (“Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to . . . § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official's own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.”); Polk Cty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981) (noting that “Section 1983 will not support a claim based on a respondeat superior theory of liability” (emphasis in original)). Indeed, to allege a plausible claim requires a showing that the supervisor (1) had actual or constructive knowledge that his/her subordinates engaged in conduct posing a pervasive or unreasonable risk of constitutional injury; (2) the supervisor's response to the knowledge was “so inadequate as to show deliberate indifference to or tacit authorization of the alleged offensive practices;” and (3) an affirmative causal link between the inaction by the supervisor and the particular constitutional injury suffered by the plaintiff. Green v. Beck, 539 Fed.Appx. 78, 80 (4th Cir. 2013). As noted, other than identifying Warden Stephon as a defendant, the plaintiff has not mentioned him in the complaint. Further, other than alleging that he sent an unanswered staff member request to A/W Peeples and Cpt. Carter, the plaintiff has also failed to make direct allegations against these defendants. As the plaintiff has provided insufficient factual allegations to subject the defendants to personal or supervisory liability, the plaintiff's claims against them are not cognizable under § 1983. See Ford v. Stirling, C/A No. 2:17-02390-MGL, 2017 WL 4803648, at *2 (D.S.C. Oct. 25, 2017); London v. Maier, C/A No. 0:10-00434-RBH, 2010 WL 1428832, at *2 (D.S.C. Apr. 7, 2010).
RECOMMENDATION
By order issued January 14, 2019, the undersigned gave the plaintiff an opportunity to correct the defects identified in his complaint and further warned the plaintiff that if he failed to file an amended complaint or failed to cure the identified deficiencies, the undersigned would recommend to the district court that the action be dismissed with prejudice and without leave for further amendment. The plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint within the time provided. Accordingly, in addition to the reasons discussed herein, this action should be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with a court order. Therefore, the undersigned recommends that the district court dismiss this action with prejudice and without issuance and service of process. See Workman v. Morrison Healthcare, 724 Fed.Appx. 280, 281 (4th Cir. 2018) (in a case where the district court had already afforded the plaintiff an opportunity to amend, directing the district court on remand to “in its discretion, either afford [the plaintiff] another opportunity to file an amended complaint or dismiss the complaint with prejudice, thereby rendering the dismissal order a final, appealable order”) (citing Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc'y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 630 (4th Cir. 2015)). The plaintiff's attention is directed to the important notice on the next page.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.