Opinion
3:23-cv-580-MOC
02-12-2024
CEDRIC THOMPSON, Plaintiff, v. MECKLENBURG COUNTY JAIL, Defendant.
ORDER
MAX O. COGBURN JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS MATTER is before the Court on initial review of the pro se Complaint [Doc. 1]. The Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. [Doc. 7].
I. BACKGROUND
The pro se Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee at the Mecklenburg County Detention Center on charges including first-degree murder, filed the instant action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [Doc. 1]. The Plaintiff names as the sole Defendant the “Mecklenburg County Jail.” [Id. at 1-2], He claims that, since his arrest in January 2023, he has been subjected to “unclean air,” and that he is being made to “live and breathe black mold.” [Id. at 4], For injuries, he states “haven't received any treatment.” [Id. at 5]. He seeks damages. [Id.].
See Mecklenburg County District Court Case No. 23CR203146.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must review the Complaint to determine whether it is subject to dismissal on the grounds that it is “frivolous or malicious [or] fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Furthermore, under § 1915A the Court must conduct an initial review and identify and dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune to such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
In its frivolity review, this Court must determine whether a complaint raises an indisputably meritless legal theory or is founded upon clearly baseless factual contentions, such as fantastic or delusional scenarios. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989). Furthermore, a pro se complaint must be construed liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, the liberal construction requirement will not permit a district court to ignore a clear failure to allege facts in his Complaint which set forth a claim that is cognizable under federal law. Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990).
III. DISCUSSION
To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that he was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and that the alleged deprivation was committed by a “person” acting under color of state law. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40,49-50 (1999); Health & Hosp. Corp, of Marion Cnty. v. Talevski, 599 U.S. 166 (2023).
The Plaintiff names the Mecklenburg County Jail as the sole Defendant in this action. However, a jail is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983. See Brooks v. Pembroke Jail, 722 F.Supp. 1294, 1301 (E.D. N.C. 1989).
The Plaintiff's allegations are also so vague and conclusory that they fail to satisfy the most basic pleading requirements. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) (requiring a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief'); Simpson v. Welch, 900 F.2d 33,35 (4th Cir. 1990) (conclusory allegations, unsupported by specific allegations of material fact are not sufficient); Dickson v. Microsoft Corp., 309 F.3d 193, 201-02 (4th Cir. 2002) (a pleader must allege facts, directly or indirectly, that support each element of the claim).
Accordingly, this action cannot proceed and the Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's Complaint fails initial review and it is dismissed pursuant to §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii) and 1915A.
The Court will allow Plaintiff thirty (30) days to amend his Complaint, if he so chooses, to properly state a claim upon which relief can be granted in accordance with the terms of this Order. Any Amended Complaint will be subject to all timeliness and procedural requirements and will supersede the Complaint. Piecemeal amendment will not be permitted. Should Plaintiff fail to timely amend his Complaint in accordance with this Order, the Court will dismiss this action without further notice.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. The Complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii) and 1915A.
2. The Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days in which to amend his Complaint in accordance with the terms of this Order. If Plaintiff fails to so amend his Complaint, the matter will be dismissed without further notice.
The Clerk is respectfully instructed to mail the Plaintiff a blank § 1983 complaint form and a copy of this Order.