Opinion
C/A No. 0:21-422-RMG-PJG
03-09-2021
Francis Simmons, Plaintiff, v. Captain Green; Sergeant Fields; Officer Jackson, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Francis Simmons, a self-represented state prisoner, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 initial review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (in forma pauperis plaintiffs) and § 1915A (prisoner plaintiffs). Having reviewed the Complaint in accordance with applicable law, the court concludes that it should be summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
I. Procedural Background
Plaintiff is an inmate in the Lee Correctional Institution of the South Carolina Department of Corrections ("SCDC"). Plaintiff claims that in late 2020, he was placed in a restrictive housing unit for ninety days. SCDC officers Jackson and Fields sent Plaintiff's personal property to the restrictive housing unit but officer Green "sent it back to the dorm" where it was "divided and stolen by inmates." (Compl., ECF No. 1 at 4-5.) The property included clothing, bedding, food and drink utensils, toiletries, legal papers, letters and pictures, and books. Plaintiff wrote grievances to officers seeking the return of his property but SCDC officials do not know where his property is and they will not reimburse him for the lost property. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for "loss of personal property" and cruel and unusual punishment and seeks damages to cover the lost property and to have his good time credit restored. (Compl., ECF No. 1 at 4, 7.)
II. Discussion
A. Standard of Review
Under established local procedure in this judicial district, a careful review has been made of the pro se Complaint pursuant to the procedural provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996), including 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Complaint has been filed 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, and is also governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires the court to review a complaint filed by a prisoner that seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See McLean v. United States, 566 F.3d 391 (4th Cir. 2009). Section 1915A requires, and § 1915 allows, a district court to dismiss the case upon a finding that the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
To state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the plaintiff must do more than make mere conclusory statements. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Rather, the complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim that is plausible on its face. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. The reviewing court need only accept as true the complaint's factual allegations, not its legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
This court is required to liberally construe pro se complaints, which are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); King v. Rubenstein, 825 F.3d 206, 214 (4th Cir. 2016). Nonetheless, 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 (4th Cir. 1990); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 684 (2009) (outlining pleading requirements under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for "all civil actions").
B. Analysis
The 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)). To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege: (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).
In light of the court's duty to liberally construe pro se pleadings, the court construes Plaintiff's claim of a "loss of personal property" as a claim that his right to procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment was violated by the defendants' losing his property when Plaintiff was moved to the restrictive housing unit. The Fourteenth Amendment protects prisoners form deprivations of property without due process. See Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 127-29 (1990). However, an unauthorized deprivation of property by state officials does not violate the Due Process Clause if the state provides a meaningful post-deprivation remedy for the loss. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) (providing that state prison officials' destruction of a prisoner's personal property did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, even though the destruction was intentional and unauthorized by state law, because the state provided the prisoner with adequate legal remedies for his losses). Moreover, merely negligent conduct by a state official that causes loss of property does not implicate the Due Process Clause. Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 332-36 (1986).
Here, Plaintiff provides no allegation that his property was taken pursuant to a state policy or law that would authorize the defendants' actions, nor does he allege that he does not have an adequate post-deprivation remedy under state law. See Hudson, 468 U.S. at 533; see, also McIntyre v. Portee, 784 F.2d 566, 567 (4th Cir. 1986) (finding that South Carolina's claim and delivery statute provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy to state prisoners that satisfies due process requirements). Also, Plaintiff provides no allegations that would plausibly show that the defendants' loss of Plaintiff's property was more than mere negligence. See Daniels, 474 U.S. at 332-36; see, also McIntyre, 784 F.2d at 567 (finding that a state prisoner's allegation that prison officials unintentionally lost his property was mere negligence and did not implicate the Due Process Clause). Therefore, Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted for a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. See Mosley v. Scarcella, No. CV 1:19-1550-RMG-SVH, 2019 WL 2368456, at *2 (D.S.C. June 4, 2019), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:19-CV-01550-RMG, 2019 WL 3406612 (D.S.C. July 29, 2019) (summarily dismissing a jail inmate's deprivation of property without due process claim because the inmate failed to allege that the defendant was not authorized to take the property pursuant to an established state procedure and that post-deprivation remedies were not available).
To the extent Plaintiff asks the court to restore his good time credits, Plaintiff fails to identify a cause of action that would justify such a remedy. Also, such a remedy is only available by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus because such a claim would affect the fact or duration of Plaintiff's confinement. See generally Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78 (2005) (a prisoner in state custody cannot use a § 1983 action to challenge 'the fact or duration of his confinement.' . . . He must seek federal habeas corpus relief (or appropriate state relief) instead.") (internal citations omitted); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 499 (1973).
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the court recommends that the Complaint be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. March 9, 2021
Columbia, South Carolina
/s/_________
Paige J. Gossett
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
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).