Opinion
C. A. 3:24-5143-JD-TER
10-10-2024
Siobhan Reaves, Jasmine Patrice, Tiesha Evans, Kathy Reaves, Plaintiffs v. S.C. State Board of Education, Molly Mitchell Spearman, Ellen Weaver, R. Hayne Hodges, Bettis Law Group, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Thomas E. Rogers, III United States Magistrate Judge.
As a matter of procedural history and context, in No. 4:23-cv-3847-JD, a narrowly drawn pre-filing injunction was ordered against Kathy Reaves. Only Siobhan, Tiesha, and Jasmine submitted motions for in forma pauperis status. (ECF Nos. 4, 5, 14) 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.
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 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 is 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 her, 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
Plaintiffs Tiesha, Siobhan, and Jasmine
Plaintiffs Tiesha, Siobhan, and Jasmine are alleged to be residents of Gwinnett County, Georgia, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, and Fulton County Georgia. (ECF No. 1 at 8). However, all their addresses are the PO Box for Kathy in Columbia, South Carolina.
This Complaint refers to the factual allegations concerning over twenty actions that their relative,Kathy Reaves has attempted to pursue in this court regarding Kathy's arrest, Kathy's detention, and resulting collateral consequences, including Kathy's attempts at employment as a teacher. Plaintiffs cite to multiple actions in this court where only Kathy is the Plaintiff. The factual allegations in the instant Complaint center around Kathy Reaves' 2021 arrest. Public records show Kathy was arrested on November 19, 2021, and bonded out on November 22, 2021. Most of the allegations in the Complaint are about Kathy's warrant, arrest, and aftermath, that has already been litigated in this court to summary judgment or to summary dismissal, as well as other federal courts in Georgia.
Siobhan is Kathy's daughter. Reaves v. Dickens, No. 4:22-CV-0318-TLW-TER, 2023 WL 2395596, at *1 (D.S.C. Jan. 27, 2023).
Plaintiffs Siobhan, Tiesha, and Jasmine lack standing to pursue this action. “[T]he party invoking the jurisdiction of the court must include the necessary factual allegations in the pleading, or else the case must be dismissed for lack of standing.” Bishop v. Bartlett, 575 F.3d 419, 424 (4th Cir. 2009). “A federal district court is powerless to create its own jurisdiction by embellishing otherwise deficient allegations of standing.” Meyer v. McMaster, 394 F.Supp.3d 550, 559 (D.S.C. 2019)(internal citations and quotations omitted). To show standing, Plaintiffs here must show: (1) that they “suffered an injury in fact-an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical;” (2) “a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of”; and (3) that it is “likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-561 (1992) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
The only allegations about Plaintiffs Siobhan, Jasmine, and Tiesha are that Plaintiffs are “associated” with a warrant or a police report that eventually was used to arrest Kathy in 2021. (ECF No. 1 at 4, 6, 11, 12). The first element of standing is “an injury in fact-an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-561 (1992). Plaintiffs Siobhan, Tiesha, and Jasmine have not pleaded any legally protected interest regarding Kathy's arrest. See McIlwain v. Prince William Hosp., 774 F.Supp. 986, 991 n.6 (E.D. Va. 1991)(collecting cases on lack of standing of relatives). Plaintiffs' allegations do not meet the first element of standing. In another action, this court found “Plaintiff Kathy Reaves does not have 3 standing to bring this action since her son's arrest as a result of a warrant is not an injury to her.” Reaves v. Mullins Police Dep't, No. 4:22-CV-03181-TLW, 2022 WL 17082903, at *1 (D.S.C. Nov. 18, 2022). Likewise, a mother's arrest is not an injury to her daughter. Id.
Plaintiffs Tiesha, Jasmine, and Siobhan do not have standing to proceed with this action and standing is a threshold jurisdictional issue such that without standing, this court is without jurisdiction to proceed at all as to those Plaintiffs in this action. See Career Counseling, Inc. v. Amerifactors Fin. Grp., LLC, 509 F.Supp.3d 547, 554 (D.S.C. 2020).
Plaintiff Kathy
On January 25, 2024, the district judge entered an order instituting a pre-filing injunction against Plaintiff Kathy as to actions within certain parameters. No. 4:23-cv-3847-JD (ECF No. 25). Plaintiff was ordered in the filing of any action:
Plaintiff must also pay the filing fee in full or obtain counsel to file new actions related to any event regarding the Georgia warrant and the 2021 South Carolina arrest in Marlboro County and its effect on Plaintiff's credit report and employment.
Further, Plaintiff is ORDERED to accompany any newly filed Complaint with a “Motion for Leave to File Pursuant to Court Order,” which should not exceed twenty pages in length and shall be forwarded to the Magistrate Judge for determination as to whether leave to file shall be granted, and Plaintiff's Motion shall be accompanied by: (1) a copy of the district judge's pre- filing injunction Order; (2) a statement from Plaintiff that the claims or relief sought are unrelated to the subject matter prohibited as outlined above; (3) a short and plain statement setting forth a valid basis for the claims or relief sought; and (4) a statement that the claims or relief sought either have or have not been raised before in other litigation, and if the claims/relief have been previously raised, then Plaintiff must provide the name of the case, the court where it was filed, the case number, and the disposition of the claims. Failure to comply with any of these requirements will be grounds for the Court to deny a “Motion for Leave to File Pursuant to Court Order” submitted by Plaintiff.Id. A review of Plaintiff's Complaint and “Motion for Leave to File” shows it is “related to any event regarding the Georgia warrant and the 2021 South Carolina arrest” and its effect; therefore, 4 this action falls within the pre-filing injunction order's parameters and its requirements. Plaintiff has failed to provide the information required in the 2023 pre-filing injunction order. Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee or obtain counsel. The Motion was not accompanied by the prior pre-filing injunction as required by part (1). (ECF No. 18). Plaintiff did not provide a statement that the claims or relief sought are unrelated to the prohibited subject matter as required by part (2). Plaintiff did not provide compliance with part (4), as Plaintiff did not provide a statement that the claims or relief sought have not been raised before in other litigation or if were raised in other actions, a list of the details of those actions. It appears the majority of the Motion is focused on Plaintiff Kathy's dissatisfaction with rulings of Judge Wooten in other cases regarding the 2021 arrest and effects. (ECF No. 18). Thus, it is recommended that Plaintiff Kathy be denied leave to file this action in this court, this action be dismissed, and any pending motions regarding installments as to Kathy be rendered moot as the 2023 order required Plaintiff to pay the filing fee.
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).