Opinion
C. A. 1:24-511-MGL-SVH
04-11-2024
Joshua Washburn; Ethan Hutson; and Jackson Thompson, Plaintiffs, v. Blackville Town Hall; Blackville Police Department; Fonda Patrick; Ronnie Purnell; Miles Loadholt; James Thorpe; and Ray Crawford, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
SHIVA V. HODGES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Joshua Washburn, Ethan Hutson, and Jackson Thompson (“Plaintiffs”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this complaint alleging a violation of their constitutional rights by Blackville Town Hall, Blackville Police Department (“BPD”), Town Administrator Fonda Patrick (“Patrick”), Town of Blackville Mayor Ronnie Purnell (“Mayor Purnell”), Blackville Town Attorney Miles Loadholt (“Attorney Loadholt”), Corporal James Thorpe, and Blackville Police Chief Ray Crawford (“Chief Crawford”) (collectively “Defendants”). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (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 this matter be dismissed without further leave for amendment.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiffs divide their factual allegations into four incidents. For ease of reference, the undersigned will follow this format.
Incident #1
Plaintiffs allege they traveled to Blackville Town Hall on December 1, 2023, to file paperwork, obtain complaint forms, and make Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) requests. [ECF No. 9-1 at 1]. Plaintiffs wore masks and filmed the incident on each of their phones. Id. Plaintiffs allege Town Administrator Patrick “attempted to give misinformation on how to file Court documents while under the guidance of an Attorney on the phone....” Id. Plaintiffs allege they were denied the “right to file Mr. Washburn's court documents and to file the Freedom of Information Act with the Clerk of Court window.” Id. Plaintiffs claim Patrick then “took the role of the Blackville Police Department window,” at which time they requested citizen complaint forms.Plaintiff allege Corporal Thorpe then asked them to provide identification, and Patrick stated that Plaintiffs' wearing of masks and filming all operations made her and her staff nervous. Plaintiffs claim:
Plaintiffs state they were first told that Chief of Police Crawford was on his way, and then were told he was in training.
Mrs. Patrick also stated to Mr. Washburn, Mr. Hutson, and Mr. Thompson that their constitutional rights did not matter when their feelings are involved. After the short back and fourth between Mr. Washburn and Mrs. Patrick, Corporal Thorpe
requested ID or he was not going to assist in the request being made. When Mr. Washburn, Mr. Hutson, and Mr. Thompson respectfully declined the Corporals request, Corporal Thorpe, unbecoming of an Peace Officer made the mistake of denying a constitutional rights to be in a public space peacefully assembling which is protected under the first amendment, assisted in denying a constitutional right to a fair trial by refusing to uphold the oath he swore, by attempting to lie about the Town Hall being private property. The same can be said for one Town Administrator Fonda Patrick, as well as Chief Ray Crawford for his hiring practices and poor training of his subordinates, as well as Chief Crawford's poor education on Constitutional Rights, in which he swore to uphold.Id. (errors in original).
Incident #2
On December 21, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a FOIA request with Patrick.
[ECF No. 9-1 at 2]. They claim the Town Hall, Mayor Purnell, and Patrick have failed to respond in violation of the South Carolina FOIA statute. Plaintiffs allege they also hoped to file complaint forms and a FOIA request with the Blackville Police Department. They allege they were again “filming the experience as part of the freedom of the press.” Id. Plaintiffs claim they encountered a man in police attire, whom later they discovered was Chief Crawford, who refused them service “without an appointment/ID.” Id. Plaintiffs allege they “were ultimately denied the right to file the appropriate documentation” for the South Carolina FOIA request. Id.
Incident #3
On January 10, 2024, Washburn and Hutson were at the Town Hall and saw Crawford taking pictures and video of Washburn. Id. at 3. Plaintiffs also allege as follows:
While walking to meet with the[ir] ride, Mr. Washburn noticed an unmarked police vehicle LP# URT-455 following them by using streets to stay close to keep an eye on both Mr. Washburn and Mr. Hutson. This was harassment by a public servant for his feelings about being investigated. While walking on Highway 78 Mr. Washburn and Mr. Hutson began to film the vehicle because they were sure they were being followed. When Chief Ray Crawford noticed the cameras were rolling, he made an immediate right turn without turn signal initiating a car accident with the car behind him.Id.
Incident #4
On January 11, 2024, Plaintiffs again traveled to Blackville Town Hall to attempt to schedule an appointment with Mayor Purnell. [ECF No. 9-1 at 4]. Patrick advised Mr. Hutson “there was no way to set an appointment to speak with the Mayor and that the Mayor had instructed her to deal with the case.” Id. Plaintiffs argue this was a violation of their First Amendment rights by “blocking” a citizen from speaking to an elected official. Id.
II. Discussion
A. Standard of Review
Plaintiffs filed their 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
1. FOIA
To the extent Plaintiffs sue for violations of the federal FOIA statute, 5 U.S.C. § 552, they have failed to state a claim because they have not alleged any of the defendants are federal agencies. The federal FOIA statute requires federal agencies to make their internal records available to the public upon request, but does not apply to state or local agencies. See Rimmer v. Holder, 700 F.3d 246, 258 (6th Cir. 2012) (noting that FOIA applies to federal and not state agencies); Ladeairous v. Goldsmith, No. 3:13-cv-673, 2015 WL 1787297, at *3 (E.D. Va. Apr. 15, 2015); Hamilton v. Newby, No. 3:19-CV-372, 2020 WL 972752, at *5 (E.D. Va. Feb. 28, 2020) (noting that FOIA does not apply to state or local entities and specifically noting that it did not apply to Henrico County), aff'd Hamilton v. Azzarone, 826 Fed.Appx. 304 (4th Cir. 2020). 2. Blackville Town Hall and BPD Are Not Persons
Because the federal FOIA statute does not apply to Defendants, the undersigned liberally construes the complaint as referencing Plaintiffs' rights under state FOIA, as the complaint is not specific as to which FOIA statute it references.
To state a plausible claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, an aggrieved party must sufficiently allege that he was injured by “the deprivation of any [of his or her] rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the [United States] Constitution and laws” by a “person” acting “under color of state law.” See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; see generally 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1230 (3d ed. 2014). Only “persons” may act under color of state law; therefore, a defendant in a § 1983 action must qualify as a “person.”
Plaintiffs' complaint is construed as brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 is the procedural mechanism through which Congress provided a private civil cause of action based on allegations of federal constitutional violations by persons acting under color of state law. The purpose of § 1983 is to deter state actors from using badge of their authority to deprive individuals of their federally guaranteed rights and to provide relief to victims if such deterrence fails.
Plaintiffs have not stated a valid § 1983 claim against Blackville Town Hall or BPD, as they do not qualify as a “person.” A sheriff's department, detention center, or task force is a group of officers or buildings that is not considered a legal entity subject to suit. See Harden v. Green, 27 Fed.Appx. 173, 178 (4th Cir. 2001) (finding that the medical department of a prison is not a person pursuant to § 1983); see also Post v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 750 F.Supp. 1131 (S.D. Fla. 1990) (dismissing city police department as improper defendant in § 1983 action because not “person” under the statute); Shelby v. City of Atlanta, 578 F.Supp. 1368, 1370 (N.D.Ga. 1984) (dismissing police department as party defendant because it was merely a vehicle through which city government fulfills policing functions). Therefore, Plaintiffs' complaint against Blackville Town Hall and BPD is subject to summary dismissal.
3. Attorney Loadholt and Mayor Purnell
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.
Plaintiffs make no factual allegations against Attorney Loadholt. Although there is a reference to Patrick giving “misinformation” under the guidance of an attorney on the phone, there is no indication that it was Attorney Loadholt. Further, even if it had been Attorney Loadholt, Plaintiffs' allegation is too vague to state a claim against him.
Mayor Purnell is also subject to summary dismissal. Although Plaintiffs claim Purnell violated the South Carolina FOIA statute, violation of a state law does not state an independent cause of action in federal court in the absence of diversity jurisdiction, which Plaintiffs have not alleged. Although Plaintiffs allege they were denied the opportunity to make an appointment with Mayor Purnell, they have provided no authority that they are constitutionally entitled to an appointment with the mayor.
For these reasons, Attorney Loadholt and Mayor Purnell are subject to summary dismissal.
4. Patrick
Plaintiffs have similarly failed to state a claim against Patrick. Although they make vague allegations that Patrick attempted to give them misinformation and that they were denied the right to file court documents, they fail to provide sufficient details to state a claim for violation of their constitutional rights. Although they indicate Patrick advised that their masks and filming made her nervous and allegedly stated that their constitutional rights do not matter, Plaintiffs do not allege that she denied them services as a result or committed some other constitutional violation. As discussed above, Patrick's alleged failure to comply with the state FOIA statute and failure to provide Plaintiffs with an appointment with Mayor Purnell do not support independent federal claims.
5. Chief Crawford
Plaintiffs first claim that Chief Crawford is liable for his hiring and training practices. The doctrine of supervisory liability is generally inapplicable to § 1983 suits, such that an employer or supervisor is not liable for the acts of his employees, absent an official policy or custom that results in illegal action. See Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978); Fisher v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Authority, 690 F.2d 1133, 1142-43 (4th Cir. 1982). The Supreme Court explains that “[b]ecause vicarious liability is inapplicable to Bivens and § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official's own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676; see Slakan v. Porter, 737 F.2d 368, 372-74 (4th Cir. 1984) (finding officials may be held liable for the acts of their subordinates, if the official is aware of a pervasive, unreasonable risk of harm from a specified source and fails to take corrective action as a result of deliberate indifference or tacit authorization).
Plaintiffs also alleged Chief Crawford denied them service without an appointment and identification. Plaintiffs have failed to describe the “services” they requested and the allegations in the complaint are insufficient to show a violation of their constitutional rights. Plaintiffs also allege Crawford followed them on one occasion, which they claim was harassment. Plaintiffs have failed to show that one incident of Crawford allegedly following them constitutes a constitutional violation.
6. Thorpe
Plaintiffs' only allegation against Thorpe is that he requested they provide identification and:
When Mr. Washburn, Mr. Hutson, and Mr. Thompson respectfully declined the Corporals request, Corporal Thorpe, unbecoming of an Peace Officer made the mistake of denying a constitutional rights to be in a public space peacefully assembling which is protected under the first amendment, assisted in denying a constitutional right to a fair trial by refusing to uphold the oath he swore, by attempting to lie about the Town Hall being private property.[ECF No. 9-1 at 11]. These allegations are insufficient to state a claim of constitutional magnitude. Plaintiffs do not allege they were forced to leave or that they were denied the opportunity to file paperwork, obtain complaint forms, or make FOIA requests. Even if Thorpe falsely stated that Town Hall was private property, Plaintiffs have not shown how their constitutional rights were thereby violated. Although the court must accept Plaintiffs' factual allegations, it is not required to accept as true the complaint's legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79.
III. Conclusion and Recommendation
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends this matter be summarily dismissed without leave for further amendment.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
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).