Opinion
C/A No. 6:20-cv-01677-RMG-KFM
06-10-2020
Mark Lott, Plaintiff, v. Jarad Anderson, Timothy Budz, Christopher Kunkle, Defendants.
REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The plaintiff, a civilly committed individual proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his Constitutional rights (doc. 1). 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 this case and submit findings and recommendations to the district court.
The plaintiff filed this case against the defendants on April 29, 2020 (doc. 1). By order dated May 6, 2020, the undersigned informed the plaintiff that his case was not in proper form (doc. 7). On May 14, 2020, the plaintiff submitted additional documents, and the case is now in proper form for judicial screening. Having reviewed the plaintiff's complaint, the undersigned recommends it be dismissed.
ALLEGATIONS
The plaintiff is a civilly committed individual in the Sexually Violent Predator Treatment Program (doc. 1 at 4). He alleges violations of his Fourteenth and Eighth Amendment rights (id.). The plaintiff contends that on January 13, 2019, and March 17, 2019, the defendants allowed him to be assaulted by resident "K" (id. at 5-6). The plaintiff contends that after the first assault, resident "K" was placed on lock down, but was then returned to the unit where the plaintiff was located (id. at 6). The plaintiff alleges that the defendants were aware that resident "K" posed a substantial risk of harm to the plaintiff (id.). For injuries, the plaintiff alleges that the January assault caused a sore in his mouth and that the March assault caused a sore jaw (id.). For relief, the plaintiff seeks a restraining order so that he and resident "K" can never be placed on the same unit again, money damages, and to be transferred to a different facility (id.). The court notes that the claims made herein are duplicative of claims made by the plaintiff in a previous case. See Lott v. Budz, et al., C/A No. 6:19-cv-01087-RMG (D.S.C.).
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 '[t]he most frequent use of judicial notice . . . is in noticing the content of court records.'").
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). 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. For the reasons that follow, the instant matter is subject to summary dismissal. The plaintiff's complaint is barred by claim preclusion (res judicata)
In the instant matter, the plaintiff seeks to re-litigate claims that have already been adjudicated and decided adversely to him by this Court. Under the doctrine of claim preclusion—or res judicata—a final judgment on the merits of an action bars the parties from re-litigating the issues that were or could have been raised in the prior action. See Pueschel v. United States, 369 F.3d 345, 354 (4th Cir. 2004). In order for res judicata to apply, there must have been (1) a final judgment on the merits in a prior suit; (2) the identity of the cause of action in both suits; and (3) the same parties or their privies in the two suits. Id. at 354-55 (citing Nash Cty. Bd. of Educ. v. Biltmore Co., 640 F.2d 484, 486 (4th Cir. 1981)); see Orca Yachts L.L.C. v. Mollicam, Inc., 287 F.3d 316, 318 (4th Cir. 2002) (noting that claim preclusion applies when there has been a valid and final judgment—even if the matter was not actually litigated (quoting In re Varat Enters., Inc., 81 F.3d 1310, 1315 (4th Cir. 1996)). In evaluating whether the same cause of action is brought in both suits, the court ascertains whether the claim in the new litigation "arises out of the same transaction or series of transactions as the claim resolved by the prior judgment." Pittston Co. v. United States, 199 F.3d 694, 704 (4th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Harnett v. Billman, 800 F.2d 1308, 1313 (4th Cir. 1986)). Here, the plaintiff contends that the defendants failed to protect him from two attacks by resident "K" on January 13, 2019, and March 17, 2019 (doc. 1 at 5-6). As noted above, the plaintiff has already brought claims regarding these attacks against these defendants and the claims were adjudicated on the merits and dismissed with prejudice. See Lott v. Budz, et al., C/A No. 6:19-cv-01087-RMG, at doc. 92 (D.S.C. June 8, 2020). Accordingly, the plaintiff's claims against the defendants are barred in the present matter.
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, - F.3d —, 2020 WL 2530832, at *1-7 (4th Cir. May 19, 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 Commercial Workers Int'l Union, 10 F.3d 1064 (4th Cir. 1993)). As noted in more detail above—the present action by the plaintiff is repetitive of an earlier action regarding the same claims that was dismissed on the merits. 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. 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 June 10, 2020
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 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).