Opinion
C. A. 3:24-39-JFA-PJG
02-08-2024
Tinika SeCal Warren, Plaintiff, v. Maurice Handy; Regina Montgromery; Lynn Allen; Caseworkers, Transitions Homeless Shelter; S.C. Housing; Columbia Housing Authority; HUD, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
PAIGE J. GOSSETT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Tinika SeCal Warren, proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. This matter is before the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.) for initial review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. By order dated January 18, 2024, the court provided Plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended complaint to correct deficiencies identified by the court that would warrant summary dismissal of the Complaint. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on February 1, 2024. (ECF No. 18.) Having reviewed the Amended Complaint in accordance with applicable law, the court concludes the Amended Complaint still fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly, this case should be summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuance of service of process.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff filed the original complaint on a standard complaint form provided by the court. Plaintiff indicated the court has jurisdiction over this case because the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq., prohibits discrimination based on race, color, sex, sexual orientation, religion, disability, and family status. Plaintiff indicated that, beginning in May 2017, she has been chronically homeless and exposed to dangerous conditions such as human trafficking and chronic illness. In a section of the form asking Plaintiff to state the facts underlying her claim, she cited to an unidentified “attached report,” and referred to crimes of sabotage and that she had her assets stolen. (Compl., ECF No. 1 at 5.) For relief, Plaintiff requested monetary damages and housing accommodations. Plaintiff listed a “HUD mediator,” “FHEO,” a caseworker or social worker, and the Columbia Housing Authority as defendants. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff also filed a “motion for relief from retaliation” that appears to also seek monetary damages, and indicates that she was denied a bed at a homeless shelter for filing previous lawsuits. (Mot., ECF No. 6.)
The Amended Complaint was also filed on a standard complaint form. In the section asking for a short and plain statement of her claim, Plaintiff writes that she sought public assistance such as food stamps, FEMA relief, and business PPP loans but they were “no obtained.” (Am. Compl., ECF No. 18 at 5.) She also allegedly has a pending application for a business license in Columbia, South Carolina. (Id.) Plaintiff also alleges she is “being blocked from having any money resources, housing and cars.” (Id.) Plaintiff indicates she seeks damage and for the court to order “Legal Aid to sign HUD forms using their agency number” and “order hotel accommodations” at a homeless shelter. (Id.) She names the same defendants as the original complaint, but again does not provide any information about them in the body of the pleading.
II. Discussion
A. Standard of Review
Under established local procedure in this judicial district, a careful review has been made of the pro se Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint has been filed 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. This statute allows a district court to dismiss the case upon a finding that the action “is frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
To state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the plaintiff must do more than make mere conclusory statements. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atl. 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. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. The reviewing court need only accept as true the complaint's factual allegations, not its legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
This court is required to liberally construe pro se complaints, which are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); King v. Rubenstein, 825 F.3d 206, 214 (4th Cir. 2016). Nonetheless, 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 (4th Cir. 1990); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 684 (2009) (outlining pleading requirements under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for “all civil actions”).
B. Analysis
The court finds that despite having availed herself of the opportunity to cure the deficiencies previously identified by the court, Plaintiff has nonetheless still failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Initially, the court notes that the face of the Amended Complaint fails to show that the court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. See Dracos v. Hellenic Lines, Ltd., 762 F.2d 348, 350 (4th Cir. 1985) (“[P]laintiffs must affirmatively plead the jurisdiction of the federal court.”).
The two most commonly recognized and utilized bases for federal court jurisdiction are (1) “federal question” under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and (2) “diversity of citizenship” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff does not cite any federal law or constitutional provision that is implicated by this case, or raise any facts would plausibly state a cause of action that would implicate the court's federal question jurisdiction. Also, though she names HUD, a federal agency, as a defendant, she does not appear to seek relief against the agency and none of the other defendants appear to have diverse citizenship. See generally Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 372-74 nn. 13-16 (1978) (providing that diversity of parties in a case means that no party on one side may be a citizen of the same state as any party on the other side). Thus, Plaintiff fails to affirmatively show that the court has subject matter jurisdiction in this case.
However, in light of the court's duty to liberally construe the pleading in light of Plaintiff's pro se status, the court construes the Amended Complaint as attempting to raise claims related to federal programs for housing assistance and other public assistance programs. Even liberally construing the Amended Complaint, the court is unable to discern a plausible legal claim. Just like the original complaint, the Amended Complaint fails to provide enough facts that explain what happened to Plaintiff, what cause of actions she seeks to raise in this lawsuit, or how the named defendants were involved. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires that a pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:
(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support;
(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and
(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
Here, Plaintiff mentions a few public assistance programs from which she apparently did not receive benefits, but she does not explain what facts give rise to a legal claim, nor does she explain whether the defendants have something to do with such a claim. See Langford v. Joyner, 62 F.4th 122, 126 (4th Cir. 2023) (“[W]e do not require a complaint to contain detailed factual allegations. But we do require sufficient facts to allow the court to infer liability as to each defendant. This is baked into Rule 8's requirement that the complaint ‘show' the plaintiff is entitled to relief.”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Thus, it is unclear again from Plaintiff's pleading what relief she seeks against the named defendants and what legal claim would plausibly entitle her to such relief. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (stating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, but it requires more than a plain accusation that the defendant unlawfully harmed the plaintiff, devoid of factual support). Without more information, the court is not able to construe a claim for relief, and Plaintiff fails to plausibly show that she raises a claim upon which relief can be granted against the named defendants.
III. Conclusion
In light of the foregoing, the court recommends that this case be dismissed without prejudice and without the issuance and service of process.
In light of the court's recommendation, Plaintiff's “motion to get relief from retaliation,” which appears to just seek the damages she claims in the pleadings, should also be denied. (ECF No. 6.)
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
901 Richland Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
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).