Opinion
C. A. 9:22-3699-JD-MHC
03-30-2023
Denzell McMillian, Plaintiff, v. Yvonne McBride, Richland County Council; Kenneth Sligh, Captain, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MOLLY H. CHERRY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This a civil action filed by Plaintiff Denzell McMillian, who was a pretrial detainee at the Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center (ASCDC) at the time he filed this action. 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.
By Order dated December 13, 2022, Plaintiff was given an opportunity to provide the necessary information and paperwork to bring his case into proper form for evaluation and possible service of process. Plaintiff was also notified of pleading deficiencies and given the opportunity to amend his Complaint. See ECF No. 4. The proper form order was returned as undeliverable on January 4, 2023. See ECF No. 7. Because records from the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC) indicated that Plaintiff was at the Kirkland Correctional Institution of SCDC, the proper form order was remailed to Plaintiff there on January 5, 2023. Plaintiff did not respond, and the proper form order mailed in January 2023 was not returned to the court. Because SCDC records indicated that Plaintiff was moved to the Turbeville Correctional Institution (TCI) of the SCDC, the proper form order was remailed to Plaintiff at TCI on February 14, 2023. Plaintiff did not respond, the proper form order mailed in February 2023 has not been returned to the court, and SCDC records indicate that Plaintiff remains incarcerated at TCI. See SCDC Incarcerated Inmate Search, http://public.doc.state.sc.us/scdc-public/ [Search Inmate “Denzell McMillian”] (last visited March 29, 2023). The time for Plaintiff to bring his case into proper form has passed, and Plaintiff has failed to bring his case into proper form and has not filed an amended complaint.
This Court may take judicial notice of factual information located in postings on government websites. See Tisdale v. South Carolina Highway Patrol, No. 0:09-1009-HFF-PJG, 2009 WL 1491409, at *1 n. 1 (D.S.C. May 27, 2009), aff'd, 347 Fed.Appx. 965 (4th Cir. 2009); In re Katrina Canal Breaches Consol. Litig., No. 05-4182, 2008 WL 4185869, at * 2 (E.D. La. Sept. 8, 2008) (noting that courts may take judicial notice of governmental websites including other courts' records).
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff alleges that from September 11, 2021, to April 25, 2022, he was subjected to “mass punishment” while at the ASGDC because there were no lights in his cell; no working water; no recreational time; and no clean sheets, blankets, wash cloths, and towels. He claims that Defendant Captain Kenneth Sligh (Sligh) “routinely visits the unit and ignores the inhumane living area.” ECF No. 1 at 5 and 7. Plaintiff appears to be attempting to bring a claim against Defendant Yvonne McBride, a Richland County councilwoman, because “[t]he County Council [is] supposed to be aware of the environment of the jail, but are ignorant of the unlawful and cruel and unusual punishment that the inmates go through.” Id. at 6-7. Plaintiff claims he has suffered from anxiety, depression, and paranoia. He seeks monetary damages for an alleged violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights and for a “lack of medical treatment and security operations.” Id. at 7.
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
This action is subject to summary dismissal for the reasons discussed below.
A. Failure to State a Claim - Defendant McBride
Although Plaintiff lists Defendant McBride's name in the caption of his Complaint, his pleadings fail to provide any specific facts to support a claim that Defendant McBride violated 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))). Here, Plaintiff only appears to speculate that McBride should have known about his alleged living conditions. 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”).
Additionally, to the extent that Plaintiff may be attempting to bring a claim against Defendant McBride 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:
Under South Carolina law, it is the Sheriff of the County who is responsible for the operation of county detention centers, not the County. See S.C. Code Ann. § 24-5-10 (Providing that it is the Sheriff who has custody of the jail in his or her County and is responsible for safely keeping individuals received for custody therein); see also Cobb v. State of South Carolina, No. 13-2370, 2014 WL 4220423, at * 2 (D.S.C. Aug. 25, 2014) (discussing Fourth Circuit and South Carolina law holding that since County has no control over operations or policies of the jail, it cannot be held liable for events that take place there).
(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 Defendant McBride. Thus, she is subject to summary dismissal as a party Defendant.
B. Conditions of Confinement Claims
Plaintiff appears to be attempting to assert that his constitutional rights were violated based on his conditions of confinement. The Fourteenth Amendment proscribes incarcerating a pretrial detainee in conditions that “amount to punishment, or otherwise violate the Constitution.” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979). Conditions constitute punishment when there is “an ‘expressed intent' to punish” or “a lack of a reasonable relationship ‘to a legitimate nonpunitive governmental objective, from which a punitive intent may be inferred.'” Hill v. Nicodemus, 979 F.2d 987, 991 (4th Cir. 1992) (quoting Martin v. Gentile, 849 F.2d 863, 870 (4th Cir. 1988)). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has held that the standard for determining whether detention center officials have violated a pretrial detainee's right to due process is deliberate indifference. See Hill, 979 F.2d at 991.
Although such claims are analyzed under the Fourteenth Amendment, case law interpreting the standard of “deliberate indifference” under the Eighth Amendment is instructive. Mays v. Sprinkle, 992 F.3d 295, 300 (4th Cir. 2021) (“[E]ven though [the plaintiff's] claim arises under the Fourteenth Amendment, we have traditionally looked to Eighth Amendment precedents in considering a Fourteenth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference....”). “To demonstrate that conditions of confinement constitute cruel and unusual punishment, [an inmate] must (1) establish that prison officials acted with ‘deliberate indifference' and (2) prove extreme deprivations of basic human needs or ‘serious or significant' pain or injury.” Smith v. Ozmint, 578 F.3d 246, 255 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Williams v. Benjamin, 77 F.3d 756, 761 (4th Cir. 1996)). To show that the conditions deprived him of a basic human need, a plaintiff must allege officials failed to provide him with humane conditions of confinement, such as “adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care, and [taking] reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 at 832.
Here, Plaintiff fails to state a claim concerning his conditions of confinement against the named Defendants. Although he appears to assert that Defendant Sligh visited his unit, he has not alleged any facts to indicate that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference. Nor has he alleged any facts to indicate that he suffered serious or significant pain or injury based on his conditions of confinement. Thus, Plaintiff's conditions of confinement claims are subject to summary dismissal.
C. Medical Claims
In his request for relief, Plaintiff requests monetary damages for a lack of medical treatment. However, he has not alleged any facts to support a claim concerning his medical needs. To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to assert a claim under § 1983 for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, he 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). An official acts with deliberate indifference if he had actual knowledge of the detainee's serious medical needs and the related risks, but nevertheless disregarded them. See Scinto v. Stansberry, 841 F.3d 219, 236 (4th Cir. 2016). Thus, Plaintiff's medical claims are subject to summary dismissal.
Because Plaintiff was a pre-trial detainee at all relevant times, the Fourteenth Amendment applies to his claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. The analysis, however, remains the same. See City of Revere v. Mass. Gen. Hosp., 463 U.S. 239 (1983); but see Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389, 397-398, 400-401 (2015) (holding that the test for excessive force claims brought by pretrial detainees under the Fourteenth Amendment differs from the test for excessive force claims brought by convicted prisoners under the Eighth Amendment). Therefore, Eighth Amendment cases are instructive in analyzing pretrial detainees' claims of deliberate indifference.
D. Failure to Bring Case into Proper Form
Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to bring this case into proper form as outlined in the Court's Order by completing a summons form that lists every Defendant and completing and signing a Form USM-285 for each Defendant. See ECF No. 4. 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 id.
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. Thus, in the alternative, it is recommended that this action be dismissed in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). 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).
E. 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 “[w]hen a district court dismisses a complaint or all claims without granting leave to amend, its order is final and appealable”).