Summary
discussing plaintiff's litigation history and imposing $402 as a sanction for Plaintiff's frivolous filing
Summary of this case from Clervrain v. AnnucciOpinion
6:21-cv-00021-SAL-KFM
01-22-2021
Manetirony Clervrain, Plaintiff, v. Henry McMaster, Defendant.
REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
KEVIN F. MCDONALD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this civil action seeking damages from the defendant (doc. 1). Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), this magistrate judge is authorized to review all pretrial matters in this case and submit findings and recommendations to the district court.
ALLEGATIONS
As an initial matter, although this is the plaintiff's first case in this district, the court takes judicial notice of the plaintiff's numerous filings in United States District Courts across the country (numbering more than 100).
Phillips v. Pitt Cnty. 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 ‘[t]he most frequent use of judicial notice . . . is in noticing the content of court records.'”).
The plaintiff seeks damages in this action from Gov. McMaster, purportedly based upon the plaintiff's alleged illegal confinement (doc. 1). The plaintiff is an immigration detainee at the Moore Detention Facility in Oklahoma, and beyond naming Gov. McMaster as a defendant, there is no indication what involvement Gov. McMaster has in the plaintiff's continued immigration detention or the complained-of conditions of confinement in the Moore Detention Facility in Oklahoma (id.). The remainder of the plaintiff's allegations are unintelligible and difficult to discern (id.). For relief, the plaintiff seeks an order terminating his immigration proceedings and vacating an unspecified conviction (id.).
APPLICABLE LAW & ANALYSIS
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). 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).
Under established local procedure in this judicial district, a careful review has been made of the pro se pleadings. This court possesses the inherent authority to review the pro se complaint to ensure that subject matter jurisdiction exists and that a case is not frivolous, even if the pleading is not subject to the pre-screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 307-08 (1989) (“Section 1915(d) . . . authorizes courts to dismiss a ‘frivolous or malicious' action, but there is little doubt they would have power to do so even in the absence of this statutory provision.”); Ross v. Baron, 493 Fed.Appx. 405, 406 (4th Cir. 2012) (unpublished) (finding that “frivolous complaints are subject to dismissal pursuant to the inherent authority of the court, even when the filing fee has been paid . . . [and] because a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over an obviously frivolous complaint, dismissal prior to service of process is permitted.” (citations omitted)). Accordingly, “[t]he present Complaint is subject to review pursuant to the inherent authority of this Court to ensure that subject matter jurisdiction exists and that the case is not frivolous.” Trawick v. Med. Univ. of S.C., C/A No. 2:16-cv-730-DCN-MGB, 2016 WL 8650132, at *4 (D.S.C. June 28, 2016), Report and Recommendation adopted by 2016 WL 8650131 (D.S.C. July 7, 2016), aff'd 671 Fed.Appx. 85 (4th Cir. 2016) (mem).
Although the plaintiff is an immigration detainee in the Moore Detention Facility in Oklahoma, it appears that he is a civil detainee, not a prisoner under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. As such, the case is not subject to the screening provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
In reviewing a complaint for frivolousness or malice, the Court looks to see whether the complaint raises an indisputably meritless legal theory or is founded upon clearly baseless factual contentions, such as fantastic or delusional scenarios. Harley v. United States, 349 F.Supp.2d 980, 981 (M.D. N.C. 2004) (citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989)). The Court must accept all well-pled allegations and review the Complaint in a light most favorable to plaintiff. Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993).
In the instant matter, the court is unable to determine what cause(s) of action the plaintiff asserts against Gov. McMaster or what role Gov. McMaster has in the plaintiff's continued confinement in Oklahoma. Instead, the plaintiff's indecipherable allegations appear to mirror those which have been asserted in several district courts throughout the country. See e.g., Clervrain v. Mercer, C/A No. 7:20-cv-00645, 2020 WL 6704589 (W.D. Va. Nov. 13, 2020) (dismissing Clervrain's claims as frivolous and noting that the court could not determine what causes of action Clervrain sought against the named defendant or what relief was sought); Clervrain v. Cuccinelli, C/A No. 20-cv-989-bbc, 2020 WL 6702003, at *1 (W.D. Wis. Nov. 13, 2020) (dismissing the plaintiff's complaint as frivolous as noting that although the “plaintiff's complaint itself is typed and legible, plaintiff's allegations about his detention are nearly incomprehensible”); Clervrain v. Marin, C/A No. 20-CV-925, 2020 WL 5408581, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2020) (noting the plaintiff's filing history and noting that “while Clervrain's cases name different defendants, they are all essentially “jabberwocky'” (citing Clervrain v. Wilson, et al., C/A No. 2:20-cv-02061, 2020 WL 1977392, at *2 (W.D. Ark. Apr. 24, 2020)); Clervrain v. Hunter, et al., C/A No. 1:20-cv-02939, at doc. 5 (N.D. Ill. May 26, 2020) (collecting cases by Clervrain and dismissing the case as frivolous because the court could “infer no plausible claims from Plaintiff's 203 pages of gibberish”); Clervrain v. Nejen, C/A No. 20-cv-134-JED-JFJ, 2020 WL 2104934 (N.D. Okla. May 1, 2020) (analyzing and dismissing Clervrain's “motion for supplemental injustice adversely affected [‘The Ants'] and for related matter for justification act (‘TAJA')”); Clervrain v. Pompeo, C/A No. 4:20-cv-555-SRC, 2020 WL 1975083, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 24, 2020) (noting that the plaintiff's complaints “‘contain a lot of legal labels but their few factual assertions are not sufficient to determine whether Clervrain has alleged a plausible claim for relief.'” (quoting Clervrain v. Coraway, C/A No. 3:18-cv-819-G-BN, 2018 WL 6313216, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 9, 2018)). Because the court is unable to decipher the plaintiff's allegations, his complaint lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325. As such, the undersigned recommends that this matter be dismissed as frivolous.
RECOMMENDATION
The undersigned is of the opinion that the plaintiff cannot cure the defects identified above by amending his complaint. See Bing v. Brivo Sys., LLC, 959 F.3d 605 (4th Cir. 2020) (citing Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc'y, 807 F.3d 619 (4th Cir. 2015); In re GNC Corp., 789 F.3d 505 (4th Cir. 2015); Chao v. Rivendell Woods, Inc., 415 F.3d 342 (4th Cir. 2005); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392 of United Food and Com. Workers Int'l Union, 10 F.3d 1064 (4th Cir. 1993)). As noted in more detail above, the present action is patently frivolous. Thus, the undersigned recommends that the court decline to automatically give the plaintiff leave to amend his complaint. Accordingly, based upon the foregoing, the Court recommends that the District Court dismiss this action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
Additionally, because the plaintiff is a civilly committed immigration detainee, based upon the plaintiff's penchant for the filing of frivolous actions in cases across the United States, the undersigned further recommends that the assigned United States District Judge sanction the plaintiff $402.00, payable to the Clerk of Court at 300 East Washington Street, Greenville, SC 29601, for filing this frivolous action. It is further recommended that in the event the plaintiff attempts to file another action in this Court before payment of the sanction, the Clerk of Court be authorized to assign civil action numbers (for docket control purposes) so that the undersigned may (1) instruct the plaintiff to pay the sanctions (and if the sanctions are not paid, dismiss the action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process) or (2) certify that the action is not frivolous. The attention of the parties is directed to the important notice on the next page.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
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
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).