Opinion
C. A. 0:20-4519-SAL-PJG
12-22-2021
James B. Murphy, Plaintiff, v. Mike Hunt; Cpt. Gallam; Lt. Bradley; Cpl. Harris; Sue Hammock; Sara Ledbetter; Trinity Service Group; Dr. Williams; Lt. Bowman; Lt. Clamp; K. Pugh, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
PAIGE J. GOSSETT, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff James B. Murphy, a self-represented state pretrial detainee, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff files this action in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and § 1915A. This matter is before the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.) for a Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff's motion for a temporary or permanent injunction (ECF No. 29), and Trinity Services Group, Inc.'s (“Trinity”) motion to quash and dismiss (ECF No. 68). Some defendants filed responses to Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief. (ECF Nos. 45 & 61.) Pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the court advised Plaintiff of the summary judgment and dismissal procedures and the possible consequences if he failed to respond adequately to Trinity's motion. (ECF No. 71.) Plaintiff filed a response in opposition. (ECF No. 83.) Having carefully reviewed the motions, supporting memoranda, and record in this case, the court concludes that Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief should be denied and Trinity's motion to quash should be granted, and that Trinity should be dismissed as a defendant in this case.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is an inmate in the Horry County Detention Center. At the time he filed this action, Plaintiff was an inmate in the Aiken County Detention Center. In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff raises various claims that the defendants-various officials and staff at the Aiken County Detention Center-are violating Plaintiff's constitutional rights. Relevant here, Plaintiff claims that he has a medical condition that causes stomach bleeding, diarrhea, and discomfort and that the medicine he needs to treat that condition is not being provided to him. Plaintiff also claims that Defendant Trinity, the Florida corporation that provides food services to the detention center, serves him food that worsens his symptoms and refuses to provide him with food that he can safely eat, and the medical staff at the jail will not change his diet. Plaintiff seeks an injunction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 requiring that he be provided proper medical treatment for his condition and a medically appropriate diet. In his motion for injunctive relief, Plaintiff asks the court to bar the medical staff-Defendants Sue Hammock, Robert Williams, Sara Ledbetter, and Kayla Pugh- from making decisions about him and from charging him for their services. (ECF No. 29 at 1.)
On May 5, 2021, the court authorized the issuance and service of process against the defendants. The court construed the Amended Complaint as asserting a claim of deliberate indifference to medical needs against Trinity. Because the court granted Plaintiff in forma pauperis status, the court directed the United States Marshals Service to effect service of process on the defendants. Pursuant to previous orders of the court (ECF Nos. 8 & 21), Plaintiff was responsible for providing sufficient information to identify the defendants on a Form USM-285, which would allow the Marshals Service to locate and serve the proper defendant. Plaintiff was warned multiple times that the Marshals Service cannot serve an inadequately identified defendant, and unserved defendants would be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (ECF Nos. 8, 21, & 32.)
The Form USM-285 Plaintiff completed for Trinity lists the defendant, as he does in the original pleading, as “Food Service Name Unknown at ACDC, ” and provided the detention center's address for the address at which the defendant should be served. The Marshals Service returned Plaintiff's Form USM-285 to the court on June 23, 2021. The form indicated that service was accepted by “Lt. Bradley, ” who also accepted service for Defendants Hunt, Harris, Williams, Ledbetter, Pugh, and himself. (ECF No. 42.) Trinity appeared and filed a motion to quash service and to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (ECF No. 68.)
DISCUSSION
A. Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary or Permanent Injunction
In light of Plaintiff's pro se status, the court construes his motion as seeking a preliminary injunction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish: (1) that he is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, (3) that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy for which courts must balance the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on each party of the granting or withholding of the requested relief. Id. at 24.
There is no need to consider a temporary restraining order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) because the defendants have had notice of Plaintiff's motion. To the extent Plaintiff seeks “permanent” injunctive relief, such relief is more appropriately considered with the ultimate determination of the merits of Plaintiff's claims, rather under Rule 65.
Courts may no longer enter preliminary injunctions based solely on a “balancing of hardships, ” without any party showing a likelihood of success on the merits. Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 575 F.3d 342, 346-47 (4th Cir. 2009), vacated on other grounds, 559 U.S. 1089 (2010).
Here, the record is undisputed that Plaintiff was transferred from the Aiken County Detention Center to the Horry County Detention Center in July 2021, where he remains. (Pugh Aff. ¶ 7, ECF No. 61-1 at 2.) Therefore, Plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief regarding his medical care at Aiken County Detention Center is moot. See Incumaa v. Ozmint, 507 F.3d 281, 286-87 (4th Cir. 2007) (“[T]he transfer of an inmate from a unit or location where he is subject to the challenged policy, practice, or condition, to a different unit or location where he is no longer subject to the challenged policy, practice, or condition moots his claims for injunctive and declaratory relief, even if a claim for money damages survives.”); Williams v. Griffin, 952 F.2d 820, 823 (4th Cir. 1991) (finding a prisoner's transfer to a different facility mooted his claim for injunctive and declaratory relief) (collecting cases); Pevia v. Hogan, 443 F.Supp.3d 612, 633 (D. Md. 2020) (same). Consequently, Plaintiff cannot demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of his claim or that he is likely to suffer irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction, and the court finds the other Winter factors do not weigh in Plaintiff's favor. See Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction should be denied.
B. Trinity's Motion to Quash and to Dismiss
Trinity argues that Plaintiff's attempted service should be quashed. Specifically, Trinity argues that service was accepted by a lieutenant at the detention center who is not an employee or registered agent of Trinity or a person authorized by law to accept service on its behalf. The court agrees.
A motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) is the proper means to challenge the sufficiency of service process, such as objections over the lack of delivery or improper mode of delivery of the summons and complaint. See Plant Genetic Sys., N.V. v. Ciba Seeds, 933 F.Supp. 519, 526 (M.D. N.C. 1996); 5B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1353 (3d ed. Apr. 2021) (providing examples of proper objections under Rule 12(b)(5), including “the nonreceipt by the defendant of a summons, the absence of an agency relationship between the recipient of process and the defendant, a lack of notice to the defendant when service is delivered to a third party under a federal or state statute, or any other failure to comply with the procedural requirements in the applicable service provisions”). The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that service of process was effected in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. Ballard v. PNC Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc., 620 F.Supp.2d 733, 735 (S.D. W.Va. 2009); Plant Genetic Sys., N.V.; 933 F.Supp. at 526. The provisions of Rule 4 should be liberally construed to effectuate service and uphold the jurisdiction of the court, but the requirements of Rule 4 must also not be ignored. See Scott v. Md. State Dep't of Lab., 673 Fed.Appx. 299, 304 (4th Cir. 2016); Karlsson v. Rabinowitz, 318 F.2d 666, 668 (4th Cir. 1963). The court has broad discretion to either dismiss the action outright or quash service, retain the case, and order that the plaintiff be given another opportunity to serve the defendant. 5B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1354 (3d ed. Apr. 2021).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h) governs service of process on corporations. The rule allows service on corporations in the United States: “in the manner prescribed by Rule 4(e)(1) for serving an individual; or by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an officer, a managing or general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process and-if the agent is one authorized by statute and the statute so requires-by also mailing a copy of each to the defendant.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(h)(1).
Here, Plaintiff has not complied with either of these methods for service on a United States corporation. Plaintiff directed that Trinity be served at the Aiken County Detention Center, noting on the Form USM-285 that the Marshals Service should serve “some supervisor” that works in the detention center's kitchen. Plaintiff was warned that he was responsible for providing information sufficient to identify the proper party to be served, but Plaintiff's Form USM-285 was insufficient to do that on its face. Though Trinity may have employees at the jail, the Form USM-285 does not identify any particular employee who can accept service on the company's behalf pursuant to Rule 4(h)(1)(B). Trinity indicates it has a registered agent in South Carolina who can be ascertained on the website for the South Carolina Secretary of State, but it is not Lieutenant Bradley or anyone who works at the jail. Therefore, Bradley's acceptance of the summons and complaint on behalf of Trinity does not comply with Rule 4(h)'s requirements for service on a corporation, and Trinity's motion to quash should therefore be granted.
Additionally, the court recommends that Trinity be dismissed from this action. Service was not completed within ninety days of the court's authorization of service pursuant to Rule 4(m), of which Plaintiff was warned. “If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court . . . must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). Plaintiff has not sought an extension of time to effect service for good cause shown, but even if he had, the court concludes that he cannot show good cause for his failure to timely serve Trinity. As noted above, Plaintiff was warned that he was responsible for properly identifying the parties to be served, yet Plaintiff filed a Form USM-285 that was insufficient on its face to serve Trinity. A lieutenant in the detention center accepted service, which was noted on the Form USM-285 returned to Plaintiff. Therefore, Plaintiff was notified that no one authorized to accept service on Trinity's behalf actually received the summons and complaint. Despite that notice, the court's warning that Plaintiff was responsible for properly identifying the party to be served, and Trinity's motion quash, Plaintiff did not make any further attempt to serve Trinity or provide the court with information to attempt service again at a different address.
Moreover, the court concludes that even if Plaintiff were provided an extension of time to effect service on Trinity, serving Trinity would be futile because, for the reasons stated in support of Trinity's motion to dismiss (Trinity's Mot., ECF No. 68 at 5-10), Plaintiff's claim against Trinity would be subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim of deliberate indifference to medical needs upon which relief can be granted. See Austin v. Paramount Parks, Inc., 195 F.3d 715, 728 (4th Cir. 1999) (providing that a private corporation cannot be held liable on respondeat superior theories of liability based on the actions of its employees; rather, the plaintiff must plausibly allege that an official policy or custom of the corporation caused the alleged deprivation of federal rights); see also Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (stating that to proceed with a claim that prison officials were deliberate indifferent to a prisoner's needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment, the plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) objectively, the deprivation suffered or injury inflicted was “sufficiently serious, ” and (2) subjectively, the prison officials acted with a “sufficiently culpable state of mind.”).
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, the court recommends that Plaintiffs motion for a temporary or permanent injunction be denied (ECF No. 29), Trinity's motion to quash service be granted (ECF No. 68), and Trinity be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m).
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).