Opinion
C. A. 9:23-01533-RBH-MHC
12-20-2023
Stanley D.C. Akar James, Jr., a/k/a Stanley James D.C. Akar, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Sheriff Kristin R. Graziano; Abigail Duffy, Detention Director, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Molly H. Cherry United States Magistrate Judge
This a civil action filed pro se and in forma pauperis by Plaintiff Stanley D.C. Akar James, Jr. At the time Plaintiff filed this action, he was a pretrial detainee at the Al Cannon Detention Center. He is currently an inmate at the Lee Correctional Institution (LCI) of the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC). Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), pretrial proceedings in this action have been referred to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge.
In a Proper Form Order dated June 9, 2023, Plaintiff was directed to provide certain documents to bring his case into proper form. He was also notified of pleading deficiencies and given the opportunity to amend his Complaint. See ECF No. 6. On August 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time. ECF No. 11. In a text order entered and mailed to Plaintiff on August 15, 2023, the time for Plaintiff to bring his case into proper form and to file any amended complaint was extended until October 16, 2023. ECF No. 12. The Proper Form Order and the Order Extending Time were remailed to Plaintiff, pursuant to his written request, at the Kirkland Reception and Evaluation Center of the SCDC on September 1, 2023. ECF Nos. 14, 15. After a change in address, the Proper Form Order was remailed to Plaintiff at LCI on October 25, 2023. ECF No. 16. Plaintiff has not filed all the necessary proper form documents, as discussed further below. Additionally, he has not filed an amended complaint.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff brings claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (§ 1983) for alleged violations of his constitutional rights. ECF No. 1 at 4. He asserts that his First and Eighth Amendment rights were violated, and appears to be alleging a claim for gross negligence under South Carolina law. Id. Plaintiff alleges that on approximately August 22, 2021, he caught coronavirus. He claims that this occurred because the jail allegedly failed to secure a place for people that came off the street and there were no washers and dryers in the old jail. Id. at 5. Plaintiff contends that he did not get any help other than vitamin pills, he suffered from “palsy disease or like stroke[-]type symptom” and he was “sick in a cell with no one to watch over [him] on his dieing bed.” Id. (errors in original). He requests one million dollars “for pain and suffering because everyday [he] was sick [he] couldve died.” Id. at 6 (errors in original).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A pro se Complaint is reviewed pursuant to the procedural provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996), and in light of the following precedents: Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992), Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989), Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), and Todd v. Baskerville, 712 F.2d 70 (4th Cir. 1983). Pro se complaints are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys, and a court is charged with liberally construing a complaint filed by a pro se litigant to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); King v. Rubenstein, 825 F.3d 206, 214 (4th Cir. 2016). However, the requirement of liberal construction does not mean that this Court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts which set forth a claim currently cognizable in a federal district court. See Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 684 (2009) (outlining pleading requirements under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for “all civil actions”).
III. DISCUSSION
It is recommended that this action be summarily dismissed for the reasons discussed below.
A. Failure to State a Claim
This action is subject to summary dismissal because Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim against the named Defendants, Sheriff Kristin R. Graziano and Sheriff Al Cannon Detention Center Director Abigail Duffy. Although Plaintiff lists Defendants' names in the caption of his Complaint, his pleadings fail to provide any specific facts to support a claim that these Defendants violated any of his federal constitutional or statutory rights. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (requiring, in order to avoid dismissal, “‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,' in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests'” (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2))). Although the “liberal pleading requirements” of Rule 8(a) only require a “short and plain” statement of the claim, a plaintiff must “offer more detail ... than the bald statement that he has a valid claim of some type against the defendant.” Trulock v. Freeh, 275 F.3d 391, 405 (4th Cir. 2001) (internal citations omitted); see also White v. White, 886 F.2d 721, 723 (4th Cir. 1989) (district court did not abuse discretion by dismissing plaintiff's complaint which “failed to contain any factual allegations tending to support his bare assertion”).
Plaintiff has not alleged any facts as to any First Amendment claim. And as to any Eighth (or Fourteenth) Amendment claim, he has alleged no facts as to the named Defendants. Because Plaintiff was a pre-trial detainee at all relevant times, the Fourteenth Amendment (rather than the Eighth Amendment) applies to any claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. See Mays v. Sprinkle, 992 F.3d 295, 300 (4th Cir. 2021); Martin v. Gentile, 849 F.2d 863, 870 (4th Cir. 1988)). The Fourth Circuit recently found that to state a claim for deliberate indifference to a medical need, a pretrial detainee must plead that:
(1) they had a medical condition or injury that posed a substantial risk of serious harm; (2) the defendant intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly acted or failed to act to appropriately address the risk that the condition posed; (3) the defendant knew or should have known (a) that the detainee had that condition and (b) that the defendant's action or inaction posed an unjustifiably high risk of harm; and (4) as a result, the detainee was harmed.Short v. Hartman, No. 21-1396, 2023 WL 8488148, at *11 (4th Cir. Dec. 8, 2023). The Court noted that this “objective test is not the sole means of showing a Fourteenth Amendment violation” and that a pretrial detainee can still state a claim if they can meet the more demanding Eighth amendment standard. Id. Under the Eighth Amendment, an inmate must allege that he had a serious medical need, and that officials knowingly disregarded that need and the substantial risk it posed. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835 (1994); Heyer v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 849 F.3d 202, 209-11 (4th Cir. 2017).
B. No Supervisory Liability
Additionally, to the extent that Plaintiff may be attempting to bring a claim against Defendants based on a theory of supervisory liability, such a claim is subject to summary dismissal. To state a § 1983 claim for supervisory liability, a plaintiff must allege:
(1) that the supervisor had actual or constructive knowledge that [his or her] subordinate was engaged in conduct that posed “a pervasive and unreasonable risk” of constitutional injury to citizens like the plaintiff; (2) that the supervisor's response to that knowledge was so inadequate as to show “deliberate indifference to or tacit authorization of the alleged offensive practices”; and (3) that there was an “affirmative causal link” between the supervisor's inaction and the particular constitutional injury suffered by the plaintiff.Wilkins v. Montgomery, 751 F.3d 214, 226 (4th Cir. 2014) (quoting Shaw v. Stroud, 13 F.3d 791, 799 (4th Cir. 1994)). Here, Plaintiff has not alleged any facts to establish supervisory liability as to Defendants.
C. Failure to Bring Case into Proper Form
Additionally, it should be noted that Plaintiff has failed to bring this case into proper form. In the Court's Proper Form Order, Plaintiff was given the opportunity to bring his case into proper form by completing and signing a Form USM-285 for each Defendant listed in this case. Plaintiff was warned that failure to provide the necessary information within the timetable set forth in the Order would subject the case to dismissal. See ECF No. 5. As noted, the time for Plaintiff to bring his case into proper form was later extended until October 16, 2023. ECF No. 12. The proper form order was also remailed to Plaintiff at both his prior SCDC address at the Kirkland Correctional Reception and Evaluation Center and to his current address at Lee Correctional Institution.
As was noted in the Proper Form Order, Plaintiff submitted an unsigned Form USM-285 that improperly contained the name of more than one Defendant. See ECF No. 6, ECF No. 4 at 3.
The time to bring this case into proper form has now lapsed, and Plaintiff has failed to provide the required items to bring his case into proper form and has failed to further contact the court in any way. Thus, in the alternative, it is recommended that this action be dismissed in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 41. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962); Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95-96 (4th Cir. 1989) (holding that district court's dismissal following an explicit and reasonable warning was not an abuse of discretion).
IV. RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Court dismiss this action without prejudice, without leave to amend, and without issuance and service of process.
See Britt v. DeJoy, 45 F.4th 790 (4th Cir. 2022) (noting that “when a district court dismisses a complaint or all claims without providing leave to amend ... the order dismissing the complaint is final and appealable”).
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).