Opinion
C/A No.: 3:19-309-CMC-SVH
02-25-2019
Edward Earl Willis, #48553, Plaintiff, v. Christopher A. Morrow, Assistant Attorney General for the State of South Carolina, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Edward Earl Willis ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, is a pretrial detainee incarcerated at the Alvin S. Glenn Dentention Center. He filed this complaint alleging South Carolina Assistant Attorney General Christopher A. Morrow ("Defendant") violated his constitutional rights. Pursuant to the provisions of 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 the district judge dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice. I. Procedural and Factual Background
On February 8, 2019, 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. 9]. The order further advised Plaintiff he had fourteen days within which to file an amended complaint or otherwise cure the identified deficiencies in his pleadings. Id. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on February 22, 2019. [ECF No. 11].
Plaintiff alleges he has been incarcerated in the Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center and the South Carolina Department of Corrections since 2003. [ECF No. 11-1 at 1]. Plaintiff claims he was evaluated in 2008 to determine if he was a sexual violent predator and the evaluating doctor concluded he did not meet the statutory definition. Id. Plaintiff argues Defendant knowingly used documents misstating his incarceration time and release date to have him evaluated a second time in October 2015. Id. Plaintiff claims Defendant gave false documents to a second evaluator who determined Plaintiff was a sexually-violent predator. Id. Plaintiff argues he served 17 months after his max-out date because of Defendant's actions. Id. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. [ECF No. 11 at 6]. II. Discussion
A. Standard of Review
Plaintiff filed his amended 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 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 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 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
Plaintiff has failed to state a claim based on Defendant's participation in Plaintiff's civil commitment proceedings. Prosecutors have absolute immunity from damages for activities performed as "an officer of the court" where the conduct at issue was closely associated with judicial proceedings. See Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335, 341-43 (2009). Such protected activities include, but are not limited to, prosecutorial actions and decisions related to the participation in a criminal trial, bond hearings, grand jury proceedings, pretrial motions hearings, and ancillary civil proceedings. Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993); Dababnah v. Keller-Burnside, 208 F.3d 467 (4th Cir. 2000). In South Carolina, the Attorney General and his assistants function as prosecutors in criminal appeals, post-conviction relief actions, and in proceedings under the Sexually Violent Predator Act, S.C. Code Ann. §§ 44-48-10, et seq. ("SVPA"). Hendricks v. Bogle, No. 3:13-CV-2733-DCN, 2013 WL 6183982, at *2 (D.S.C. Nov. 25, 2013). Because Plaintiff sues Defendant for actions associated with Defendant's prosecution or detention of Plaintiff under the SVPA, Plaintiff's claims against Defendant are barred by prosecutorial immunity. See Michau v. Warden, C/A No. 2:11-286-RMG, 2011 WL 4943631, at *4 (D.S.C. Oct. 17, 2011) (holding assistant attorney general immune for prosecution of plaintiff in state court and/or SVPA proceedings). The undersigned recommends Plaintiff's complaint be summarily dismissed. III. Conclusion and Recommendation
By order issued on February 8, 2019, the undersigned provided Plaintiff an opportunity to correct the defects identified in his complaint and further warned Plaintiff if he failed to timely file an amended complaint or failed to cure the identified deficiencies, the undersigned would recommend to the district court the action be dismissed without leave for further amendment. As discussed herein, Plaintiff's amended complaint fails to correct the deficiencies, and like the original complaint, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends the district court dismiss this action with prejudice. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc'y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 630 (4th Cir. 2015)).
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. February 25, 2019
Columbia, South Carolina
/s/
Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge
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).