Opinion
C. A. 1:23-269-SAL-SVH
05-09-2023
Felix M. Whren, Plaintiff, v. United States of America, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Shiva V. Hodges, United States Magistrate Judge.
Felix M. Whren (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this complaint against the United States seeking injunctive relief. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(i)(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 following reasons, the undersigned recommends this matter be dismissed without leave to amend.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff is detained in the Kershaw County jail and alleges he and his peers are being deprived of their civil rights. [ECF No. i at 3]. Specifically, he complains that he is being held without bond:
In my jailhouse pod there are ii men who are all being held without bond only 2 of which are white men. [T]he rest are of ethnicity their charges vary from drug possession to murder and rape. What they all have in common is their inability to bond out.
Despite that 9 of the 11 men in my pod are black or brown is despicable.Id. (errors in original). He requests monetary damages and for the Department of Justice to conduct an investigation.
On February 8, 2023, the undersigned issued orders (1) identifying the defects in Plaintiff's complaint and providing him an opportunity to amend and (2) directing Plaintiff to provide documents necessary to bring this case into proper form. Plaintiff has not responded to the orders.
II. Discussion
A. Standard of Review
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). 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). 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. 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).
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). Although the court must liberally construe a pro se complaint, the United States Supreme Court has made it clear 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.
B. Analysis
1. Claims of Other Inmates
As a pro se inmate, Plaintiff is not qualified to assert a claim on behalf of others. See Myers v. Loudoun Cnty. Pub. Schls., 418 F.3d 395, 400 (4th Cir. 2005) (“An individual unquestionably has the right to litigate his own claims in federal court.... The right to litigate for oneself, however, does not create a coordinate right to litigate for others”); Hummer v. Dalton, 657 F.2d 621, 625 (4th Cir. 1981) (prisoner's suit is “confined to redress for violations of his own personal rights and not one by him as knight-errant for all prisoners”).
2. Investigation by Department of Justice
To the extent the complaint seeks relief in the manner of criminal investigations, Plaintiff does not have standing or authority to bring criminal charges by filing a civil lawsuit. See Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973) (“[A] private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.”); see also Harris v. Salley, 339 Fed.Appx. 281 (4th Cir. 2009) (“Harris does not have a constitutional right to institute criminal proceedings against Salley or to sue the defendants for failing to use their authority to do so.”).
3. No Claims Against Defendant
Although he has sued the United States, Plaintiff's claims are not against the United States, any federal agent, or agency. Rather it appears he is alleging a conspiracy by the Kershaw County jail, the courts, and the State of South Carolina. As such, Plaintiff' has not alleged facts sufficient to support a claim against the United States.
4. Bond
Absent extraordinary circumstances, federal courts are not authorized to interfere with a state's pending criminal proceedings. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 44 (1971); Nivens v. Gilchrist, 319 F.3d 151, 158-62 (4th Cir. 2003); Cinema Blue of Charlotte, Inc. v. Gilchrist, 887 F.2d 49, 50-53 (4th Cir. 1989). Further, federal district courts should abstain from considering constitutional challenges to state judicial proceedings, no matter how meritorious, if the federal claims have been or could be presented in an ongoing state judicial proceeding. Cinema Blue of Charlotte, Inc., 887 F.2d at 52. Here, Plaintiff can properly present his constitutional claims in his state criminal proceeding.
III. Conclusion and Recommendation
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends this matter be summarily dismissed. Because Plaintiff has previously been provided an opportunity to amend the complaint, the undersigned recommends the dismissal be without further leave to amend.
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).