Opinion
C. A. 4:20-cv-03864-SAL-TER
01-13-2021
Clyde Devon Singletary, Plaintiff, v. Investigator Roger W. Tilton, Sheriff's Department Florence County, Prosecutor Todd S. Tucker, Solicitor's Office Florence County, Cpl. Maroline Mack, Deputy Terry J. Christmas, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Thomas E. Rogers, III, United States Magistrate Judge
This is a civil action filed by a former pretrial detainee and a current state prisoner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. 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. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e); 1915A (as soon as possible after docketing, district courts should review prisoner cases to determine whether they are subject to summary dismissal).
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 review has been conducted pursuant to the procedural provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and in light of the following precedents: Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324-25 (1989); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); Nasim v. Warden, Md. House of Corr., 64 F.3d 951 (4th Cir. 1995); Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147 (4th Cir. 1978).
This 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. To protect against possible abuses of this privilege, the statute allows a district court to dismiss the case upon a finding 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). 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. at 31. Under § 1915(e)(2)(B), a claim based on a meritless legal theory may be dismissed sua sponte. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989).
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 may be 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 him, 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
On December 22, 2020, Plaintiff was informed via court order of deficiencies in his Complaint that would subject his Complaint to summary dismissal and was given an opportunity to file an Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 16). Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint but deficiencies remain and this action is subject to summary dismissal.
Plaintiff alleges this is a § 1983 action for violations of his Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (ECF No. 19 at 4). Plaintiff alleges he was arrested without probable cause. (ECF No. 19 at 5). Plaintiff alleges the incident took place on January 16, 2017 and cites to state statutes he alleges Defendants violated. (ECF No. 19 at 6). Plaintiff was informed via court order “that an amended complaint replaces the original complaint and should be complete in itself. See Young v. City of Mount Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 572 (4th Cir. 2001) (“As a general rule, an amended pleading ordinarily supersedes the original and renders it of no legal effect.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also 6 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 1476 (3d ed. 2017) ("A pleading that has been amended under Rule 15(a) supersedes the pleading it modifies and remains in effect throughout the action unless it subsequently is modified. Once an amended pleading is interposed, the original pleading no longer performs any function in the case ....").” (ECF No. 16 at 5). However, under the question regarding what are the facts, Plaintiff stated see original complaint. (ECF No. 19 at 7). Plaintiff's Amended Complaint cites to several arrest warrants. (ECF No. 19 at 9). Plaintiff's Amended Complaint reports that he sued some of the defendants in state court, case number 2019-cp-21-00610. (ECF No. 19 at 13).
“A federal court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint as barred by the statute of limitations on initial review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (2018).” Harriot v. United States, 795 Fed.Appx. 215, 216 (4th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, No. 20-5251, 2020 WL 5883643 (U.S. Oct. 5, 2020). State law provides the statute of limitations for § 1983 claims. In South Carolina, the applicable statute of limitations is generally three years. See S.C. Code Ann. § 15-3-530. Plaintiff filed this action on November 5, 2020. Plaintiff alleges the event giving rise to his claim took place January 16, 2017. Over three years and nine months have passed between those dates; such that the filing of this action is barred by the statute of limitations. The entire action is subject to summary dismissal for this reason alone. However, additional grounds beyond such are discussed below.
Plaintiff pursued Defendants Tilton, Christmas, Marolone, and Tucker in a state action 2019-cp-21-00610. Public records show such action was dismissed. To the extent Plaintiff's allegations involve claims already pursued in state court, and Plaintiff is attempting to challenge final judgments in prior state court proceedings, the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine bars them. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). To the extent Plaintiff claims any injury caused by errors in state court proceedings, any such state court ruling cannot be reviewed or set aside and such relief cannot be granted by the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. See Rooker, 263 U.S. 413; Feldman, 460 U.S. 462. This prohibition on review of state court proceedings by federal district courts is implicated when a ruling in the plaintiff's favor on his claims in connection with state court proceedings would, necessarily, require the federal court to overrule (or otherwise find invalid) various orders and rulings made in the state court. Such a result is prohibited under the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine. See Exxon Mobile Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 293-94 (2005); Davani v. Va. Dep't of Transport., 434 F.3d 712, 719-20 (4th Cir.2006). Because the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine is jurisdictional, it may be raised by the court sua sponte. American Reliable Ins. Co. v. Stillwell, 336 F.3d 311, 316 (4th Cir. 2003). According to the Fourth Circuit, “the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies . . . when the loser in state court files suit in federal district court seeking redress for an injury allegedly caused by the state court's decision itself.” Davani v. Va. Dep't of Transp., 434 F.3d 712, 713 (4th Cir. 2006).
To the extent under a liberal construction Plaintiff attempts to allege a false arrest claim, under § 1983, “a public official cannot be charged with false arrest when he arrests a defendant pursuant to a facially valid warrant.” Porterfield v. Lott, 156 F.3d 563, 568 (4th Cir. 1998)(internal citations omitted). The Fourth Circuit reiterated that “a false arrest claim must fail where it is made pursuant to a facially valid warrant.” Dorn v. Town of Prosperity, 375 Fed.Appx. 284, 286 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Based on Plaintiff's filings, he was arrested pursuant to a facially valid warrant, and any false arrest claims are subject to summary dismissal.
To the extent under a liberal construction Plaintiff attempts to allege a malicious prosecution claim, a claim that one is wrongfully detained because his arrest was made pursuant to a warrant that was not supported by probable cause, is a claim for malicious prosecution. See Porter field, 156 F.3d at 568; see also Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 389-90 (2007). To state a malicious prosecution claim, Plaintiff must show at least, that “defendant[s] have seized [plaintiff] pursuant to legal process that was not supported by probable cause and that the criminal proceedings [have] terminated in [plaintiff's] favor.” Burrell v. Virginia, 395 F.3d 508, 514 (4th Cir. 2005)(internal citations and quotations omitted). The U.S. Supreme Court provided in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) that until a conviction was set aside or charges finally dismissed without the possibility of revival, a § 1983 claim could not be pursued based on allegations of unlawful circumstances surrounding the criminal prosecution. See also Brooks v. City of Winston-Salem, N.C. , 85 F.3d 178 (4th Cir. 1996). Under the favorable termination rule, the charges must be terminated “for reasons indicative of the innocence;” courts have held that an unexplained nolle prosequi or disposal of charges for reasons other than innocence do not satisfy the Heck “favorable termination” requirement. Restatement(Second) of Torts § 660 (1977); see also Tucker v. Duncan, 499 F.2d 963, 965 (4th Cir. 1974); Wilkins v. DeReyes, 528 F.3d 790, 802-03 (10th Cir. 2008); Washington v. Summerville, 127 F.3d 552, 558-59 (7th Cir. 1997); Posr v. Court Officer Shield # 207, 180 F.3d 409, 418 (2nd Cir. 1999); Jackson v. Gable, 2006 WL 1487047, at *6 (D.S.C. May 25, 2006); Nicholas v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 33 Fed.Appx. 61, 64-65 (D.S.C. 2002). While Wallace held that Heck no longer bars claims of false arrest by pretrial detainees, Heck is still applicable to claims of malicious prosecution. Wallace, 549 U.S. at 387 n.1, 390 n.2. Plaintiff has not shown that the charge connected to his allegations has been favorably terminated in accordance with the above law. As such, his claims for malicious prosecution are subject to summary dismissal.
Plaintiff sues Sheriff's Department Florence County and the Solicitor's Office Florence County. These are not defendants amenable to suit under § 1983. In a § 1983 civil rights action, a plaintiff must sufficiently allege injury through “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” by a “person” acting under color of state law. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A defendant in a § 1983 action must qualify as a “person.” Harden v. Green, 27 Fed.Appx. 173, 178 (4th Cir. 2001). In order to assert a plausible § 1983 claim against any particular state actor, a “causal connection” must exist between the conduct alleged by the plaintiff and the particular defendant named in the suit. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S.159, 166 (1985); Rizzo v. Good, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72 (1976) (a § 1983 plaintiff must show that he suffered a specific injury resulting from a specific defendant's specific conduct and must show an affirmative link between the injury and that conduct); Vinnedge v. Gibbs, 550 F.2d 926, 928 (4th Cir.1977) (for an individual to be liable under § 1983, the Plaintiff must show that the defendant named acted personally in the deprivation of the plaintiff's rights). Such named defendants are not persons amenable to suit under § 1983 and are subject to summary dismissal.
Plaintiff sues Prosecutor Tucker. Prosecutors are protected by immunity for activities in or connected with judicial proceedings. Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335, 338-44 (2009); Dababnah v. Keller-Burnside, 208 F.3d 467, 470 (4th Cir.2000). Prosecutors, when acting within the scope of their duties, have absolute immunity from damages liability under § 1983 for alleged civil rights violations committed in the course of proceedings that are “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976). Tucker is subject to summary dismissal.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the District Court dismiss the Complaint in this case with prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has found where the district court already afforded an opportunity to amend, the district court has the discretion to afford another opportunity to amend or can “dismiss the complaint with prejudice, thereby rendering the dismissal order a final, appealable order.” Workman v. Morrison Healthcare, 724 Fed.Appx. 280 (4th Cir. June 4, 2018)(Table); Knox v. Plowden, 724 Fed.Appx. 263 (4th Cir. May 31, 2018)(Table)(on remand, district judge dismissed the action with prejudice); Mitchell v. Unknown, 2018 WL 3387457 (4th Cir. July 11, 2018)(unpublished). Thus, in line with Fourth Circuit cases, the undersigned recommends the dismissal in this case be with prejudice, as Plaintiff had an opportunity to amend and failed to cure the deficiencies.
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).