Opinion
C/A No.: 1:20-2803-CMC-SVH
08-03-2020
John Ehrhardt, Plaintiff, v. Michael Stephan, Warden of BRCI; and Correctional Officer FNU Lewis, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
John Ehrhardt ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, filed this complaint for alleged violations of his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.), the undersigned is authorized to review such petitions for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the district judge. For the following reasons, the undersigned recommends the complaint be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff to bring his claims in an appropriate court. I. Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff alleges that when Correctional Officer Lewis was conducting an institutional roll call count, he instructed Plaintiff to proceed to the holding cell. [ECF No. 1 at 8]. Plaintiff asked Lewis to move his property to the front of the holding cell so Plaintiff could observe it, but Lewis refused. Id. While Plaintiff was in the holding cell, his television was stolen, which Plaintiff claims was in Lewis's custody and control. Id.
Plaintiff requests replacement of his television and $50,000 from mental anguish caused from not being able to view news, weather, sports, and entertainment. Id. at 9. II. Discussion
A. Standard of Review
A complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 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). In evaluating a pro se complaint, the plaintiff's allegations are assumed to be true. Fine v. City of N.Y., 529 F.2d 70, 74 (2d Cir. 1975). 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 the plaintiff could prevail, it should do so. A federal court is 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).
The requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts that 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). Although the court must liberally construe a pro se complaint, the United States Supreme Court has made it clear a plaintiff must do more than make conclusory statements to state a claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009); Bell Atlantic 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, and the reviewing court need only accept as true the complaint's factual allegations, not its legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79.
B. Analysis
1. Adequate State Law Remedy
Plaintiff's allegation that his property was stolen while in Lewis's custody and control is not cognizable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, because Plaintiff has an adequate state-court remedy for such personal-property issues under the South Carolina Torts Claim Act ("SCTCA"). See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984); Mora v. City of Gaithersburg, 519 F.3d 216, 230-31 (4th Cir. 2008). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has held that a federal district court should deny § 1983 relief if state law provides a plaintiff with a viable post-deprivation remedy for the loss of personal property—even if the deprivation was caused by an employee of the state, an employee of a state agency, or an employee of a political subdivision of a state. Yates v. Jamison, 782 F.2d 1182, 1183-84 (4th Cir. 1986). This holding applies regardless of whether the inmate's property loss was the result of negligence or an intentional act of the state employee or employees. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. at 533 (extending the holding of Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981) to intentional deprivations of property); see also Bogart v. Chapell, 396 F.3d 548, 557 n.7, 561 (4th Cir. 2005) (South Carolina has meaningful post-deprivation remedies of "conversion/trespass to chattels" for personal property loss caused by county employees).
Under South Carolina law, Plaintiff's claims relating to lost or stolen personal property are cognizable under the SCTCA. See S.C. Code Ann. §§ 15-78-10 through 15-78-220. The provisions of the SCTCA encompass both negligent and intentional losses of property proximately caused by a person employed by the State of South Carolina, a state agency, or political subdivision of the state while acting within the scope of his or her employment. See S.C. Code § 15-78-70(a) ("This chapter constitutes the exclusive remedy for any tort committed by an employee of a governmental entity."). Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims relating to his personal property are cognizable under the SCTCA because Lewis was an employee of the South Carolina Department of Corrections ("SCDC"). Plaintiff can file a verified claim of his alleged personal property loss with SCDC under the Act. S.C. Code § 15-78-80(a)(1) ("A verified claim for damages under this chapter, setting forth the circumstances which brought about the loss, the extent of the loss, the time and place the loss occurred, the names of all persons involved if known, and the amount of the loss sustained may be filed . . . with the agency employing an employee whose alleged act or omission gave rise to the claim...."). The undersigned recommends Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to § 1983 be dismissed.
2. Supervisory Liability
Additionally, Warden Stephan is not liable for the actions of his subordinates. The doctrine of supervisory liability is generally inapplicable to § 1983 suits, such that an employer or supervisor is not liable for the acts of his employees, absent an official policy or custom that results in illegal action. See Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). The Supreme Court explains that "[b]ecause vicarious liability is inapplicable to Bivens and § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official's own individual actions, has violated the Constitution." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676; see Slakan v. Porter, 737 F.2d 368, 372-74 (4th Cir. 1984) (finding officials may be held liable for the acts of their subordinates, if the official is aware of a pervasive, unreasonable risk of harm from a specified source and fails to take corrective action as a result of deliberate indifference or tacit authorization). III. Conclusion and Recommendation
For the following reasons, the undersigned recommends Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed.
As Plaintiff may choose to file a claim for property deprivation in state court, the undersigned has not recommended the complaint be dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. August 3, 2020
Columbia, South Carolina
/s/
Shiva V. Hodges
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).