Opinion
2:21-cv-03938-HMH-MGB
03-08-2022
Richard Bayne, Plaintiff, v. Captain Wells, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MARY GORCON BAKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff Richard Bayne (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights based on his detention facility's lack of access to a law library. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), the undersigned is authorized to review the Complaint and submit a recommendation to the United States District Judge. For the following reasons, the undersigned recommends that this action be summarily dismissed.
BACKGROUND
At the time Plaintiff filed this Complaint, he was being detained at the Cherokee County Detention Center (“CCDC”), where he had “no access to [a] law library.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 4.) Plaintiff claims that when he requested “basic legal materials, ” Defendant Wells informed him that the detention center “doesn't offer this or have a law library, ” and that Plaintiff should contact the public defender's office for further assistance. (Id. at 4-5.) Plaintiff asserts that the facility's lack of legal materials and a law library “hinders [him] from being able to properly file a 1983 civil suit” and therefore seeks $10,650.00 so that he may hire an attorney and pay the fees associated with legal research and materials. (Id. at 6.)
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
After reviewing the Complaint, the undersigned issued an order notifying Plaintiff that his action was subject to summary dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Dkt. No. 5.) In light of Plaintiff's pro se status, however, the undersigned gave him an opportunity to cure the deficiencies identified in the original pleading by filing an amended complaint with the Court within twenty-one days. The order warned Plaintiff that failure to file an amended complaint or cure the pleading deficiencies within the prescribed time period would result in summary dismissal. (Id. at 2.)
Plaintiff apparently did not receive the order, which was returned to the Court as undeliverable mail with a stamp on the envelope stating, “RTS, not here.” (Dkt. No. 9.) Plaintiff has not provided the Court with a new address at which he receives mail, and the record indicates no attempt by Plaintiff to contact the Court since filing the Complaint. Thus, Plaintiff has not filed any amended pleading, and the time to comply with the undersigned's order has lapsed.
The Court also consulted the South Carolina Department of Corrections Inmate Locator Database to determine if Plaintiff was transferred to another facility. See http://www.doc.sc.gov/InmateSearchDisclaimer.html. Based on our review, that does not appear to be the case.
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). This action 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.
To protect against possible abuses, the court must dismiss any prisoner 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). Indeed, a claim based on a meritless legal theory may be dismissed sua sponte “at any time” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324-25 (1989). The United States Supreme Court has explained that the statute “is designed largely to discourage the filing of, and waste of judicial and private resources upon, baseless lawsuits.” Id. at 326.
As to failure to state a claim, a complaint filed in federal court must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” as required under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). In order to satisfy this standard, a plaintiff must do more than make conclusory statements. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (explaining that the court need not accept as true a complaint's legal conclusions). Rather, the complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” See Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). 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.
Pro se complaints are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). A federal court is therefore charged with liberally construing a complaint filed by a pro se litigant to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Nonetheless, the requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the court can ignore a clear failure to allege facts that set forth a cognizable claim under Rule 8(a)(2). See Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 390- 91 (4th Cir. 1990); see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 684 (2009) (outlining pleading requirements under Rule 8, Fed. R. Civ. P., for “all civil actions”). Such is the case here.
DISCUSSION
As noted above, Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on his lack of access to certain legal resources at CCDC. Section 1983 “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). In other words, a civil action under § 1983 “creates a private right of action to vindicate violations of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356, 361 (2012). To state a claim to relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (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). Here, Plaintiff's Complaint fails to satisfy the first prong for purposes of § 1983.
Although not explicitly asserted, the substance of Plaintiff's pleading seems to implicate an access-to-the-courts claim. Indeed, inmates have a “fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts [that] requires prison authorities to assist inmates in the preparation and filing of meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law.” See Williamson v. Rogers, No. 0:15-cv-4755-MGL-PJG, 2017 WL 2703858, at *2 (D.S.C. June 2, 2017) (referencing Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977)), adopted, 2017 WL 3085761 (D.S.C. July 20, 2017). However, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has clarified that the Constitution does not require every local jail to have a law library, Magee v. Waters, 810 F.2d 451, 452 (4th Cir. 1987), as county jails are generally short-term facilities. Because Plaintiff was being temporarily held at the Cherokee County Detention Center, he was not entitled to a law library at that time. See Jones v. Lexington Cty. Det. Ctr., 586 F.Supp.2d 444, 447-48 (D.S.C. 2008) (“[T]he law is quite clear that those being temporarily detained in county facilities awaiting criminal trials do not have a constitutional right to a law library.”).
Additionally, to prove that Defendant Wells impeded his access to the courts, Plaintiff also “must show actual injury or prejudice resulting from the official conduct.” Carelock v. Boone, No. 5:19-cv-00116-JMC, 2020 WL 5810408, at *4 (D.S.C. Sept. 30, 2020) (internal citations omitted); see also Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996) (explaining that for a plaintiff to state a claim for denial of access to courts, he must demonstrate actual injury or prejudice by alleging that his facility's shortcomings have “hindered, or are presently hindering, his efforts to pursue a nonfrivolous legal claim”). Beyond the conclusory statement that CCDC's lack of legal resources hindered Plaintiff's ability to pursue a § 1983 claim, the Complaint does not allege any substantive facts that reflect a cognizable injury. Consequently, Plaintiff's lack-of-access claim is subject to summary dismissal.
The undersigned further notes that, based on Plaintiff's apparent release from CDCC, any concerns regarding the facility's lack of legal resources are ultimately moot, as Plaintiff can presumably access whatever legal material he otherwise lacked during detainment. See U.S. Const., art. III, § 2, cl. 1 (“To qualify as a case fit for federal-court adjudication, an actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.”); see also Brown & Pipkins, LLC v. Serv. Employees Int'l Union, 846 F.3d 716, 728 (4th Cir. 2017) (explaining that “a case is moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome”).
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Complaint be summarily dismissed, without prejudice and without issuance and service of process, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The Clerk of Court shall not issue the summons or forward this matter to the United States Marshal Service for service of process at this time.
The Clerk of Court shall mail a hardcopy of this Report and Recommendation to Plaintiff at his last known address in an abundance of caution.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
Plaintiffs 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).