Opinion
C/A No. 6:19-2690-HMH-KFM
11-04-2019
Jelani Rondell Aiken, Plaintiff, v. Andy Strickland, Shane Roberts, Colleton County Sheriff's Office, Defendants.
REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The plaintiff, a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.), this magistrate judge is authorized to review all pretrial matters in cases filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and submit findings and recommendations to the district court.
The plaintiff's complaint was entered on the docket on September 23, 2019 (doc. 1). By order filed September 25, 2019, the plaintiff was given a specific time frame in which to bring his case into proper form for judicial screening (doc. 9). The plaintiff complied with the court's order, bringing his case into proper form. On October 10, 2019, the undersigned issued an order informing the plaintiff that his complaint was subject to dismissal as drafted and providing him with fourteen days to file an amended complaint and correct the deficiencies noted in the order (doc. 14). 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 (id.). The plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint within the time provided; accordingly, the undersigned recommends that the instant matter be dismissed.
BACKGROUND
The plaintiff is a pre-trial detainee confined in the Colleton County Jail ("CCJ") (doc. 1). He alleges that he has been denied access to legal research materials because CCJ does not have a law library (id. at 5). He seeks an order from the court requiring CCJ to provide a law library, and monetary damages to compensate him for his inability to prepare for his upcoming trial (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). Further, the plaintiff is a prisoner under the definition of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(c), and "seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity." 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Thus, even if the plaintiff had prepaid the full filing fee, this Court is charged with screening the plaintiff's lawsuit to identify cognizable claims or to dismiss the complaint if (1) it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
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
As noted above, the plaintiff filed the instant action pursuant to § 1983, seeking damages from the defendants. However, for the reasons that follow, the plaintiff's complaint is subject to summary dismissal.
Denial of Access to the Courts Claim
The plaintiff alleges that his constitutional rights have been violated, as he has been denied legal research privileges and access to a law library for his upcoming trial (doc. 1). Such a claim for denial of access to the courts must be pled with specificity. Cochran v. Morris, 73 F.3d 1310, 1317 (4th Cir. 1996). Moreover, pretrial detainees, temporarily held in a county facility while awaiting trial, do not have a constitutional right to a law library, as the Constitution guarantees a right to reasonable access to the courts, not to legal research or a law library. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. at 351; Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 838 (1977); see also Jones v. Lexington Cty. Det. Ctr., 586 F. Supp 2d 444, 448 (D.S.C. 2008) (noting that "the law is quite clear that those being temporarily detained in county facilities awaiting criminal trial do not have a constitutional right to a law library") (citing Magee v. Waters, 810 F.2d 451, 452 (4th Cir. 1987)). In any event, to maintain a valid constitutional claim for denial of access to the courts, a prisoner must show actual injury. Cochran, 73 F.3d at 1317; see Lewis, 518 U.S. at 349. The plaintiff has made no such showing. Further, according to the Colleton County Court of General Sessions public docket, the plaintiff is awaiting trial for murder and domestic violence, appointment of an attorney was ordered by that court on September 6, 2018, and Helen Rose Roper Dovell, Esquire, has noticed an appearance as counsel on the plaintiff's behalf. See Colleton County Public Index, https://publicindex.sccourts.org/Colleton/PublicIndex/PISearch.aspx (enter the plaintiff's name and 2018A1510100379, 2017A1520300407) (last visited November 4, 2019). As such, he has access to legal information from his attorney. Accordingly, in light of the foregoing, the plaintiff's denial of access to law library claim is subject to summary dismissal.
See Phillips v. Pitt Cty. Mem. Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 180 (4th Cir. 2009) (courts "may properly take judicial notice of matters of public record."); Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Coil, 887 F.2d 1236, 1239 (4th Cir. 1989) ("We note that 'the most frequent use of judicial notice is in noticing the content of court records.'").
Colleton County Sheriff's Office
The plaintiff's complaint names the Colleton County Sheriff's Office ("CCSO") as a defendant in this action, presumably because CCSO is responsible for the supervision of the CCJ (doc. 1 at 5). It is well settled that only "persons" may act under color of state law; thus, a defendant in a § 1983 action must qualify as a "person." Groups of individuals in a building, such as a sheriff's department, do not qualify as a "person" who can act under color of state law for purposes of § 1983. See Kane v. Beaufort Cty Sheriffs Dep't, C/A No. 9:14-508-RMG, 2015 WL 404570, at *6 n.2 (D.S.C. Jan. 29, 2015) (noting that "[a] department is not a person subject to suit under § 1983"). As such, the CCSO is not a "person" subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Accordingly, the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted against it, and it is entitled to summary dismissal.
Defendants Andy Strickland & Shane Roberts
Defendants Andy Strickland and Shane Roberts do not appear in the plaintiff's complaint beyond the caption and being merely named as defendants (see doc. 1).
Liberally construed, the plaintiff may seek relief against these defendants in their supervisory capacities at CCJ. Nevertheless, the plaintiff's claims against these defendants are subject to summary dismissal because the doctrines of vicarious liability and respondeat superior are generally not applicable to § 1983 suits. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676 ("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)). Regardless, the plaintiff has failed to make any allegations against the defendants, so his case against them is subject to summary dismissal.
RECOMMENDATION
By order issued October 10, 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 F. App'x 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.
s/ Kevin F. McDonald
United States Magistrate Judge November 4, 2019
Greenville, South Carolina
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 committees 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
300 East Washington Street, Room 239
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
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).