Opinion
Case No. 2:19-cv-1208-RMG-MGB
06-06-2019
John Ryan Tate Wilson, Plaintiff, v. Spartanburg County Regional Hospital and Spartanburg County Jail, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff John Wilson is a pretrial detainee representing himself. Therefore, in the event that a limitations issue arises, Wilson shall have the benefit of the prison-mailroom rule. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). Generally, Wilson alleges claims arising from his assault of a security guard and resulting indictment and detention. Under Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), the assigned United States Magistrate Judge is authorized to review the complaint and to submit a recommendation to the United States District Judge. For the following reasons, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed, without prejudice and without issuance or service of process.
BACKGROUND
Wilson alleges that on May 18, 2018, he was at the Spartanburg County Regional Hospital for an overdose. (Dkt. No. 1 at 5.) He alleges "a case of malpractice happened" when staff at the Spartanburg Regional Medical Center gave him an injection that caused him to black out. (Id.) Wilson asserts he was told that, while he was blacked out, he tackled a security guard. (Id.) For that, he was arrested and then charged with assault and battery and with threatening a public official. (Id.) He has since been at the Spartanburg County Jail, and he claims the police have been treating him cruelly there. (Id. at 4, 6.) Wilson contends this amounts to unlawful discrimination, cruel and unusual punishment, malpractice, defamation of character, and false imprisonment. (Id. at 4, 6.) He is suing the Hospital and the Jail. (Id. at 2, 3.)
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Wilson filed this action on April 14, 2019. Because Wilson constitutes a prisoner under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, and because he is proceeding in forma pauperis, the undersigned screened his complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A(a). On May 2, the undersigned issued an order notifying Wilson that his complaint was subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim and that he had not provided documents required for the Court to order issuance and service of process. (Dkt. No. 6.) The undersigned gave Wilson an opportunity to file an amended complaint and to provide the missing service documents. (Id.) The Clerk of Court provided Wilson forms to complete those tasks. His deadline was May 27. (Id.)
April 14 is the date on Wilson's complaint. (Dkt. No. 1 at 12.) Neither the complaint nor its envelope indicate the date they were delivered to the jail's mailroom. The envelope is postmarked April 24, and the Court received the complaint on April 26. (See Dkt. No. 1-1 at 1.) The undersigned is using April 14 to give Wilson the benefit of the doubt.
On May 11, Wilson sent the Court a letter saying that he was unable to complete the forms and therefore would be contacting a lawyer to assist him. (Dkt. No. 10.) Since then, the Court has not received anything else from Wilson, and no lawyer has appeared on his behalf.
DISCUSSION
As discussed below, this case should be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order. Alternatively, the case should be dismissed because the complaint fails to state any facially plausible claims for relief.
I. Failure to Prosecute and to Comply with Court Order
In the May 2 order, the undersigned warned Wilson that, if he did not timely submit service documents, his case would be subject to dismissal for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with a court order. (Dkt. No. 6 at 3.) Although Wilson indicated he would be obtaining a lawyer, he did so well in advance of his deadline. Moreover, he did not seek an extension of his deadline while he found an attorney who would take his case. The deadline expired more than a week ago, and nothing in the record suggests that Wilson will soon either try completing the forms again himself or have an attorney bring his case into compliance. Thus, it appears the case should be dismissed under Rule 41, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court's order.
II. Failure to State a Claim
The Court is required to screen prisoner complaints seeking redress from governmental entities, officers, or employees. See § 1915A. The Court must dismiss any complaints, or portions of complaints, that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. § 1915A(b). Those same criteria are grounds for dismissing a case filed by someone proceeding in forma pauperis. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
As for failure to state a claim, a complaint filed in federal court "must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). When a court analyzes a complaint for facial plausibility, it must accept the factual allegations as true. Id. The court need not, however, accept as true the complaint's legal conclusions. Id. When "it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations," Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), the complaint fails to state a claim.
The complaint is subject to summary dismissal because it fails to state a valid claim against either defendant. "A federal civil rights claim based upon § 1983 has two essential elements: '[A] plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.'" Crosby v. City of Gastonia, 635 F.3d 634, 639 (4th Cir. 2011) (quoting West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988)). Only a "person" can be liable under § 1983, and neither the Jail nor the Medical Center is a person. Miller v. Spartanburg Reg'l, No. 6:10-cv-2662-HFF-KFM, 2010 WL 5479658, at *3 (D.S.C. Oct. 21, 2010), adopted, 2010 WL 5462473 (D.S.C. Dec. 29, 2010); see Jackson v. Palmetto Baptist Hosp., No. 3:05-cv-1901-CMC, 2005 WL 5405815, at *3 (D.S.C. Nov. 17, 2005) (finding hospital was not a person under § 1983), aff'd, 181 F. App'x 391 (4th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). Moreover, the complaint does not allege Medical Center was acting under color of state law—a key requirement of any § 1983 claim. See Miller, 2010 WL 5479658, at *1. Wilson's claims therefore fail.
In addition, the malpractice and defamation claims Wilson is asserting are state-law causes of action that cannot be raised through § 1983. See Browning v. McGowan, No. 0:18-cv-2790-RBH, 2018 WL 6342284, at *3 (D.S.C. Dec. 5, 2018) (medical malpractice); Garrett v. Aube, No. 8:18-cv-1449-MGL-JDA, 2018 WL 3628848, at *2 (D.S.C. May 31, 2018) (defamation), adopted, 2018 WL 3619823 (D.S.C. July 30, 2018). The claims are subject to dismissal on that basis as well.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the case should be dismissed, without issuance or service of process, either under Rule 41 or for failure to state a claim. The undersigned recommends that the dismissal be without prejudice.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. June 6, 2019
Charleston, South Carolina
/s/_________
MARY GORDON BAKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff's attention is directed to the Important Notice on the next page.
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 835
Charleston, South Carolina 29402
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).