Opinion
C. A. 4:23-656-RMG-TER
05-01-2023
Dominick Alexander Brown, #589190, Plaintiff, v. Charleston County Sheriff's Office, Kristin R. Graziano, Sgt. L.M. Long, Sgt. J.C. Berry, Nurse Sharon Stump, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
THOMAS E. ROGERS, III., FLORENCE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
This is a civil action filed by a pretrial detainee, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and District of South Carolina Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e), the undersigned is authorized to review all pretrial matters in such pro se cases and to submit findings and recommendations to the District Court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e); 1915A (as soon as possible after docketing, district courts should review prisoner cases to determine whether they are subject to summary dismissal).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under established local procedure in this judicial district, a careful review has been made of Plaintiff's pro se complaint filed in this case. This review has been conducted pursuant to the procedural provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and in light of the following precedents: Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324-25 (1989); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); Nasim v. Warden, Md. House of Corr., 64 F.3d 951 (4th Cir. 1995); Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147 (4th Cir. 1978).
Plaintiff's 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. To protect against possible abuses of this privilege, the statute allows a district court to dismiss the case upon a finding 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). 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. at 31. Under § 1915(e)(2)(B), a claim based on a meritless legal theory may be dismissed sua sponte. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989).
This court is required to liberally construe pro se complaints. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Such pro se complaints are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Id.; Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). Even under this less stringent standard, however, the pro se complaint may be subject to summary dismissal. 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 plaintiff could prevail, it should do so, but a district court may not rewrite a complaint to include claims that were never presented, construct the plaintiff's legal arguments for him, or conjure up questions never squarely presented to the court. Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985); Small v. Endicott, 998 F.2d 411 (7th Cir. 1993); Barnett v. Hargett, 174 F.3d 1128 (10th Cir. 1999). 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 currently cognizable in a federal district court. Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 390-91 (4th Cir.1990) (The “special judicial solicitude” with which a [court] should view such pro se complaints does not transform the court into an advocate.).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff's action is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 “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) (internal quotation and citation omitted). A legal action under § 1983 allows “a party who has been deprived of a federal right under the color of state law to seek relief.” City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., 526 U.S. 687, 707 (1999). Under § 1983, a plaintiff must establish 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 color of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
Plaintiff's Complaint is difficult to decipher. (ECF No. 1). The court does not construct arguments for pro se parties. It appears Plaintiff alleges there was a physical altercation with other detainees and Plaintiff is not being allowed to file criminal charges. (ECF No. 1 at 5). Plaintiff alleges he has been kidnapped; this allegation borders on being frivolous. (ECF No. 1 at 6). Plaintiff alleges he was examined after the detainee altercation. (ECF No. 1 at 7). Under grievances, Plaintiff alleges his claims are “discrimination, neglect of duty, and kidnapping.” (ECF No. 1 at 15). Plaintiff alleges he had a busted bleeding nose and injuries to his left eye. (ECF No. 1 at 11). Plaintiff requests monetary damages of 12 and 14.5 million dollars. Plaintiff attaches a state court restraining order regarding the victim of his 2019 conviction of stalking; it is unclear how this is related to his allegations. (ECF No. 1-1).
Public records show Plaintiff had received a suspended sentence on a 2019 stalking charge but was booked in the detention center for a probation violation a month later. In February 2023, Plaintiff's suspended sentence was revoked in state court and Plaintiff was ordered to serve five years.
See generally, https://jcmsweb.charlestoncounty.org/PublicIndex/(with search parameters limited by Plaintiff's name). The court may take judicial notice of factual information located in postings on government websites. See In re Katrina Canal Breaches Consolidated Litigation, No. 05-4182, 2008 WL 4185869 at * 2 (E.D. La. Sept. 8, 2008) (noting that courts may take judicial notice of governmental websites including other courts' records); Williams v. Long, No. 07-3459-PWG, 2008 WL 4848362 at *7 (D. Md. Nov. 7, 2008) (noting that some courts have found postings on government websites as inherently authentic or self-authenticating).
Plaintiff's allegations do not allege any claims or facts for violations of his constitutional rights to support a § 1983 action against Defendants. In order to assert a plausible § 1983 claim against any particular state actor, a “causal connection” must exist between the conduct alleged by the plaintiff and the particular defendant named in the suit. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S.159, 166 (1985); Rizzo v. Good, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72 (1976) (a § 1983 plaintiff must show that he suffered a specific injury resulting from a specific defendant's specific conduct and must show an affirmative link between the injury and that conduct); Vinnedge v. Gibbs, 550 F.2d 926, 928 (4th Cir.1977) (for an individual to be liable under § 1983, the Plaintiff must show that the defendant named acted personally in the deprivation of the plaintiff's rights). Plaintiff here must demonstrate that the official personally caused or played a role in causing the deprivation of a federal right. See Graham, 473 U.S. at 166 and Harris v. City of Va. Beach, 11 Fed. App'x 212, 215 (4th Cir.2001) (affirming dismissal of the plaintiff's claim against five defendants when the plaintiff did not allege any of the defendants were personally involved in the alleged deprivation of his civil rights). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “demands more than an unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Id. Defendants will not know how to respond to conclusory allegations, especially when “the pleadings mentioned no specific time, place, or person involved.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 565 n. 10. (2007). Plaintiff has not alleged personal involvement in an actionable claim. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Additionally, a sheriff's office is not a person and thus is not defendant amenable to suit in a § 1983 action. See Brooks v. Borghi, No. 5:21-CV-03282-BHH-MHC, 2022 WL 17543121, at *2 (D.S.C. Nov. 18, 2022), report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 17542998 (D.S.C. Dec. 8, 2022); Heavner v. Burns, 2022 WL 17477561, at *4 (W.D. N.C. Dec. 6, 2022).
Further, as to Plaintiff's repetitive allegations of not being allowed to file criminal charges, Plaintiff, as “a private citizen, lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.” Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973); see also Smith v. McCarthy, 349 Fed.Appx. 851, 859 (4th Cir. 2009) (because plaintiffs in a § 1983 action had no right to a criminal investigation or prosecution of another, plaintiffs had failed to allege a violation of a clearly established statutory or constitutional right); Riley v. Patterson, No. 9:07-2655-HFF-GCK, 2007 WL 2471203 at * 2 (D. S.C. 2007) (collecting cases and finding plaintiff failed to state a § 1983 claim when alleging constitutional rights were violated by lack of criminal prosecution of another); Lopez v. Robinson, 914 F.2d 486, 494 (4th Cir.1990); Graw v. Fantagsky, 68 Fed.Appx. 378, 383 (3d Cir.2003); Ogunsula v. Holder, No. GJH-15-1297, 2015 WL 3892126, at *2 (D. Md. June 22, 2015), aff'd, 641 Fed.Appx. 260 (4th Cir. 2016). Plaintiff's action is subject to summary dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the District Court dismiss this action with prejudice under § 1915(e) and § 1915A and without issuance and service of process.
It is recommended that this action be dismissed without leave to amend. See Britt v. DeJoy, 45 F.4th 790 (4th Cir. 2022).
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
Post Office Box 2317
Florence, South Carolina 29503
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).