Opinion
C/A No.: 4:19-2991-DCC-KDW
01-03-2020
Charles Ryan Murphy, Plaintiff, v. Roger W. Tilton, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Charles Ryan Murphy ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this Complaint alleging a violation of his constitutional rights against Roger W. Tilton ("Defendant"). Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.), the undersigned is authorized to review such complaints for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the district judge. For the reasons that follow, the undersigned recommends the district judge dismiss the Complaint. I. Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff alleges Defendant violated his constitutional rights when he manipulated and lied in his report to make Plaintiff look guilty. ECF No. 1-1 at 1. Plaintiff claims Defendant's Rule 5 contains inaccurate and forged witness statements. Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff also contends Defendant was not truthful when he reported in his Rule 5 that Plaintiff confessed to committing the crime. Id. at 3-5. Plaintiff claims Defendant charged him with second degree burglary although he knows Plaintiff did not commit the crime. Id. at 4. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages. ECF No. 1 at 6.
On October 25, 2019, the court issued an order notifying Plaintiff that his Complaint was subject to summary dismissal because he failed to allege sufficient factual allegations to state a claim. ECF No. 10. The order further advised Plaintiff that he had 21 days to file an amended complaint or otherwise cure the identified deficiencies in his pleadings. Id. Plaintiff was further advised that if he did not file an amended complaint or otherwise cure deficiencies it would be recommended that his claims be dismissed without leave for further amendment. Plaintiff did not file an amended pleading, nor did he otherwise respond to the court's October 25, 2019 Order and Notice. II. Discussion
A. Standard of Review
Plaintiff filed his Complaint 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 a case upon a finding that the action fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted or is frivolous or malicious. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii). 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. 25, 31 (1992). A claim based on a meritless legal theory may be dismissed sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).
Pro se complaints are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). A federal court is charged with liberally construing a complaint filed by a pro se litigant to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). In evaluating a pro se complaint, the plaintiff's allegations are assumed to be true. Fine v. City of N.Y., 529 F.2d 70, 74 (2d Cir. 1975). 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 the plaintiff could prevail, it should do so. Nevertheless, the requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts that 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).
B. Analysis
1. Younger abstention
Plaintiff's Complaint is subject to dismissal based upon the Younger doctrine. In Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), the Supreme Court held that a federal court should not equitably interfere with state criminal proceedings except in the most narrow and extraordinary of circumstances. See also Gilliam v. Foster, 75 F.3d 881, 903 (4th Cir. 1996). The Younger Court noted that courts of equity should not act unless the moving party has no adequate remedy at law and will suffer irreparable injury if denied equitable relief. Younger, 401 U.S. at 43-44 (citation omitted). From Younger and its progeny, the Fourth Circuit has culled the following test to determine when abstention is appropriate: "(1) there are ongoing state judicial proceedings; (2) the proceedings implicate important state interests; and (3) there is an adequate opportunity to raise federal claims in the state proceedings." Martin Marietta Corp. v. Md. Comm'n on Human Relations, 38 F.3d 1392, 1396 (4th Cir. 1994) (citing Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm'n v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982)).
Applying these factors to this case, abstention is appropriate. First, Plaintiff is involved in an ongoing state criminal proceeding. If this court were to make factual findings that Defendant acted improperly during his investigation of Plaintiff, the court would be interfering with a pending criminal state court proceeding. Second, the Supreme Court has noted that "the States' interest in administering their criminal justice systems free from federal interference is one of the most powerful of the considerations that should influence a court considering equitable types of relief." Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986). Finally, Plaintiff has the opportunity to present his claims about Defendants' investigation in state court during the disposition of his criminal charges. Accordingly, the Younger abstention doctrine compels the court to abstain from exercising jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims.
2. False Arrest
Plaintiff's claim for false arrest should also be dismissed. To establish a § 1983 claim based on a Fourth Amendment violation for false arrest, a plaintiff must show that a seizure was effected without probable cause and that the legal process terminated in his favor. See Massey v. Ojaniit, 759 F.3d 343, 356 (4th Cir. 2014); Brooks v. City of Winston-Salem, 85 F.3d 178, 183 (4th Cir. 1996). To demonstrate that an officer unreasonably seized an individual based on a warrant that lacked probable cause, a plaintiff must show that the officer "deliberately or with a reckless disregard for the truth made material false statements in his affidavit or omitted from that affidavit material facts with the intent to make, or with reckless disregard of whether they thereby made, the affidavit misleading." Miller v. Prince George's Cnty., 475 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). However, allegations of negligence or innocent mistake are insufficient to provide a basis for a constitutional violation. Id. at 627-28.
Plaintiff's Complaint provides insufficient facts to challenge the validity of the warrant Defendant obtained for Plaintiff's arrest. Although Plaintiff claims Defendant falsified his Rule 5 investigation to obtain an arrest warrant, Plaintiff does not offer any facts to show Defendant intentionally lied in drafting the affidavit in support of the warrant. Plaintiff has not set forth any evidence showing that any statement in the arrest warrant was deliberately false or made with reckless disregard for the truth. Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims should be summarily dismissed. III. Conclusion and Recommendation
By order issued October 25, 2019, the undersigned provided Plaintiff an opportunity to correct the defects identified in his Complaint and further warned Plaintiff that if he failed to timely file an amended complaint or failed to cure the identified deficiencies, the undersigned would recommend to the district court that the action be dismissed without leave for further amendment. 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. The undersigned recommends the district court dismiss this action. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc'y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 630 (4th Cir. 2015).
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. January 3, 2020
Florence, South Carolina
/s/
Kaymani D. West
United States Magistrate Judge
The parties are directed to note the important information in the attached
"Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation."
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).