Opinion
C/A No. 6:19-3301-HMH-KFM
02-26-2020
Jamario Lenard Stevenson, Plaintiff, v. J. Smith, J. Elliott, M. Canright, Defendants.
REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The plaintiff, a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.), this magistrate judge is authorized to review all pretrial matters in cases filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and submit findings and recommendations to the district court.
The plaintiff's complaint was entered on the docket on November 22, 2019 (doc. 1). By orders filed November 26, 2019, and December 19, 2019, the plaintiff was given a specific time frame in which to bring his case into proper form for judicial screening (docs. 6; 11). Although the plaintiff did not bring his case into proper form, because of his substantial compliance in providing proposed service documents, the court reviewed his complaint. By order filed January 15, 2020, the plaintiff was informed that his complaint was subject to summary dismissal because it failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and that he could attempt to cure the defects identified in his complaint by filing an amended complaint within fourteen days (doc. 15). The plaintiff was informed that if he failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise cure the deficiencies outlined in the order, the undersigned would recommend that his case be dismissed (id. at 5-6). On January 27, 2020, the plaintiff's amended complaint was entered on the docket (doc. 18). Because the plaintiff did not provide appropriate service documents with his amended complaint, on January 30, 2020, an order was issued instructing the plaintiff to complete appropriate service documents for his amended complaint (doc. 22). The plaintiff has failed to respond to the order and provide appropriate service documents. In any event, because the amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the undersigned recommends dismissal of the case.
ALLEGATIONS
The plaintiff's case involves the conditions of his confinement at the J. Reuben Long Detention Center ("the Detention Center") (doc. 18). He contends that the defendants are responsible for his alleged violations because they are in charge of moving people from one pod to another (id. at 5). The plaintiff alleges that his constitutional rights are being violated because he is housed with an inmate that shot him at some point in the past (id.). He also alleges that he got into a fight with the inmate who shot him (id.). He contends that two officers (not named as defendants in this action) observed the fight, but have kept him in the same pod (id. at 5-6). For injuries, the plaintiff asserts that his neck and back were hurt during the fight and that he is having flashbacks and suffering from PTSD as a result of being shot by this inmate in the past (id. at 6). For relief, the plaintiff seeks $2.5 million dollars (id.).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the in forma pauperis statute. This statute authorizes the District Court to dismiss a case if it is satisfied that the action "fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted," is "frivolous or malicious," or "seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Further, the plaintiff is a prisoner under the definition of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(c), and "seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity." 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Thus, even if the plaintiff had prepaid the full filing fee, this Court is charged with screening the plaintiff's lawsuit to identify cognizable claims or to dismiss the complaint if (1) it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
As a pro se litigant, the plaintiff's pleadings are accorded liberal construction and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by attorneys. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (per curiam). The requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the Court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts which set forth a claim cognizable in a federal district court. See Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 1990).
This case is filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which "'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) (quoting Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n. 3 (1979)). 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 under § 1983, a 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).
DISCUSSION
As noted above, the plaintiff filed the instant action pursuant to § 1983, seeking damages from the defendants. Nevertheless, the plaintiff's amended complaint is subject to summary dismissal.
The plaintiff alleges that his constitutional rights are being violated by being housed with an inmate who previously shot him and because he got into a fight with the same inmate (doc. 18 at 5-6). However, prisoners generally do not have a constitutionally recognized liberty interest in a particular security classification or prison placement. Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 468 (1983) (finding no constitutional right under the due process clause to a particular security classification or prison placement), overruled in part on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). Indeed, as noted by the Supreme Court, a change in a prisoner's conditions of confinement only gives rise to a federally-protected liberty interest if it "imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life." Sandin, 515 U.S. at 483, 485 (finding no liberty interest when inmate placed in segregated confinement). Moreover, as noted, the plaintiff is dissatisfied with his dorm placement; however, he has no right to be housed in a particular prison or dorm. Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245-46 & n.6 (1983), abrogated in part on other grounds by Sandin, 515 U.S. 471 (1995); see Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 75 (4th Cir. 1994) (noting that prisoners have no right to be held in protective or minimum custody). Accordingly, even as amended, the plaintiff's dorm placement claim is subject to summary dismissal.
The plaintiff may also be attempting to assert a failure to protect claim against the defendants based upon his placement in the dorm with an inmate who injured him in the past and with whom he has engaged in a fight. However, even liberally construing the plaintiff's complaint, he has not alleged that the defendants had knowledge of a substantial risk of harm to him and disregarded that substantial risk. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994); see also Parrish v. Cleveland, 372 F.3d 294, 302-03 (4th Cir. 2004) (stating the standard of deliberate indifference requires actual knowledge and disregard of a substantial risk of serious injury). Indeed, the only allegations with respect to the named defendants in the amended complaint are that these defendants are responsible for moving inmates from one pod to another (doc. 18 at 4). These conclusory allegations, even as amended, do not meet the plausibility standard. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (noting that "[A] claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.") (citing Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544, 556-57 (2007)). As such, to the extent the plaintiff's amended complaint asserts a failure to protect claim, it is subject to summary dismissal.
Moreover, beyond noting that the plaintiff's neck and back hurt after the fight he engaged in with the other inmate, the plaintiff has not alleged a constitutionally cognizable injury (see doc. 18 at 6). The plaintiff asserts that he suffers from nightmares, mental dysfunction, and that he has flashbacks (id.). However, there is no federal constitutional right to be free from emotional distress, mental anguish, or psychological stress. See Williams v. Pruitt, C/A No. 8:13-cv-01812-JMC, 2013 WL 4500436, at *2 n.2 (citing Grandstaff v. City of Borger, Tex., 767 F.2d 161 (5th Cir. 1985), cert denied, 480 U.S. 916 (1987); Rodriguez v. Comas, 888 F.2d 899, 903 (1st Cir. 1989)). As such, in light of the foregoing, the plaintiff's amended complaint is subject to summary dismissal.
RECOMMENDATION
By order issued January 15, 2020, the undersigned gave the plaintiff an opportunity to correct the defects identified in his complaint and further warned the plaintiff that if he failed to file an amended complaint or failed to cure the identified deficiencies, the undersigned would recommend to the district court that the action be dismissed with prejudice and without leave for further amendment. Despite filing an amended complaint, the plaintiff has not cured the deficiencies identified in the order dated January 15, 2020 (doc. 15) and has failed to respond to the order dated January 30, 2020 (doc. 22). Therefore, the undersigned recommends that the district court dismiss this action with prejudice and without issuance and service of process. See Workman v. Morrison Healthcare, 724 F. App'x 280, 281 (4th Cir. 2018) (in a case where the district court had already afforded the plaintiff an opportunity to amend, the district court was directed on remand to "in its discretion, either afford [the plaintiff] another opportunity to file an amended complaint or dismiss the complaint with prejudice, thereby rendering the dismissal order a final, appealable order") (citing Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc'y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 630 (4th Cir. 2015)). The plaintiff's attention is directed to the important notice on the next page.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
s/ Kevin F. McDonald
United States Magistrate Judge February 26, 2020
Greenville, South Carolina
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 committees 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
300 East Washington Street, Room 239
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
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).