Opinion
C/A No.: 1:18-3288-HMH-SVH
12-28-2018
Reggie Green, #374211, Plaintiff, v. United States of America, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Reggie Green ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this complaint against the United States of America ("Defendant"). Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.), the undersigned is authorized to review such complaints for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the district judge. For the reasons that follow, the undersigned recommends that the district judge dismiss the complaint in this case without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. I. Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff alleges Defendant went bankrupt in March 1933 and therefore there is no lawful currency in the United States. [ECF No. 1 at 1]. Plaintiff contends he has been subjected to a lifetime of slavery and injustice because he is unable to earn income or own anything. Id. Plaintiff also claims he was kidnapped on July 5, 2017, on indictment numbers 16-GS-18-1810 and 16- GS-18-1811. [ECF No. 1-1 at 1]. Plaintiff argues he is not Defendant's employee and is therefore not subject to United States laws and codes. Id. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and other compensation. [ECF Nos. 1 at 2; 1-1 at 1-2]. II. Discussion
A. Standard of Review
Plaintiff filed his complaint 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 a case upon a finding that the action fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted or is frivolous or malicious. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii). 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. 25, 31 (1992). A claim based on a meritless legal theory may be dismissed sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).
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 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). 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. Nevertheless, 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).
B. Analysis
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). Although the court must liberally construe a pro se complaint, the United States Supreme Court has made it clear that 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.
Plaintiff has failed to allege any factual allegations in his complaint that state a plausible claim against Defendant. He alleges no wrongdoing by Defendant. Accordingly, Plaintiff's complaint is subject to summary dismissal. See Chong Su Yi v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F. App'x 247, 248 (4th Cir. 2014) (affirming dismissal of factually and legally frivolous claims); Holloway v. Pagan River Dockside Seafood, Inc., 669 F.3d 448, 452-53 (4th Cir. 2012) (noting a federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a complaint raising claims "'so insubstantial, implausible . . . or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy'") (citation omitted).
Plaintiff's claim against Defendant is also subject to dismissal under the principle of sovereign immunity. Under the principle of sovereign immunity, individuals may not sue the United States or its agencies without their consent, see United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212 (1983), and "the United States has not waived sovereign immunity in suits claiming constitutional torts." Reinbold v. Evers, 187 F.3d 348, 355 n.7 (4th Cir. 1999). As Defendant is immune from Plaintiff's constitutional claims, this case is subject to summary dismissal. Further, any claim Plaintiff may be attempting to assert pursuant to the Federal Torts Claims Act ("FTCA") should also be dismissed. The FTCA provides a limited waiver of sovereign immunity whereby a plaintiff may recover a monetary award from the United States for damages "caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope . . . of employment." 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). However, litigants must strictly comply with the requirements of the FTCA, U.S. v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111, 117-18 (1979), and the burden is on the plaintiff in an FTCA case to prove that he completed all the conditions precedent to filing a lawsuit. Kielwien v. U.S., 540 F.2d 676, 679 (4th Cir. 1976). Plaintiff has not alleged any facts to establish that he has complied with FTCA pre-suit requirements. Accordingly, Plaintiff's tort claims should be summarily dismissed.
A cause of action under the FTCA must be presented to the appropriate federal agency within two years after the claim accrues, and the tort suit must be begun within six months after the date of the final denial of the claim by the agency to which it was presented. See 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b); Dyniewicz v. United States, 742 F.2d 484, 485 (9th Cir. 1984).
The undersigned finds Plaintiff cannot cure the deficiencies in his complaint through amendment, as his complaint is comprised of nonsensical factual statements and conclusory, disjointed legal arguments that fail to state a federal cause of action. Federal courts are not required to be "mind readers" or advocates for pro se litigants when construing pro se pleadings, see Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985), and the court may dismiss a complaint as frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact. Holloway, 669 F.3d at 452-53 (4th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, the undersigned finds any amendment would be futile. III. Conclusion and Recommendation
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends the court dismiss the complaint without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. December 28, 2018
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).