Opinion
C/A No. 6:21-cv-01322-HMH-KFM
05-28-2021
Peter A. Stiebel, Plaintiff, v. Harold Robinson, Grady Morgan, M.D. Manley, Mike Cordero, Justin Johnson, 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.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The plaintiff's complaint was entered on the docket on December 5, 2019 (doc. 1). By orders dated December 11, 2019, and January 28, 2020, the court informed the plaintiff that his case was not in proper form and provided instructions for bringing the case into proper form, including submission of answers to the court's special interrogatories (docs. 6; 11). On March 3, 2020, the plaintiff's answers to special interrogatories were entered on the docket (doc. 18). Based upon those answers, and the plaintiff's claims that he was illegally arrested in Georgia and illegally extradited from Georgia, on March 25, 2020, the undersigned issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the case be transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia ("Georgia Case") (doc. 20). On April 16, 2020, the Honorable Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior United States District Judge, adopted the Report and Recommendation and the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia and opened as Case Number 4:20-cv-00076-CDL-MSH (doc. 22).
Once the Georgia case was opened, the plaintiff was instructed to provide additional information to proceed in forma pauperis (doc. 27). The plaintiff complied with the order, and by order dated June 22, 2020, the court allowed the plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis in the Georgia case (doc. 29). On September 23, 2020, in the Georgia case, the Honorable Stephen Hyles, United States Magistrate Judge, issued an order instructing the plaintiff to supplement his complaint and notify the court of the status of his pending criminal charges (doc. 30). The plaintiff did not respond to the order, so an order to show cause was issued on October 20, 2020 (doc. 31). The plaintiff responded to the order to show cause on November 13, 2020, seeking additional time to supplement his complaint (doc. 32). The plaintiff was given an additional fourteen days to supplement his complaint (doc. 33). The plaintiff did not respond, so on December 9, 2020, a report and recommendation was entered in the Georgia case, recommending dismissal of the action based upon Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (doc. 34). The plaintiff then filed the supplement to his complaint, and the report and recommendation was withdrawn (docs. 35; 36 at 1).
Based on the plaintiff's supplement, on February 16, 2021, a report and recommendation was entered in the Georgia case recommending that the plaintiff's extradition claim be dismissed and recommending that the case be returned to the District of South Carolina for resolution of the plaintiff's false arrest claims (doc. 36). The report noted that despite the plaintiff's assertions to the contrary, he was in fact challenging his charges by alleging that the defendants lacked evidence to connect the plaintiff to the charges, that he is not guilty of the charges, and that the defendants used false allegations to arrest him (id. at 3). The report further noted that the plaintiff's complaint did not mention or challenge the extradition hearing itself in challenging his confinement in Georgia (id. at 3-4). Based upon the finding in the Georgia case that the plaintiff had not challenged his extradition proceedings, as well as that the Georgia law enforcement defendants were acting based upon information from the South Carolina law enforcement defendants, the Magistrate Judge in Georgia recommended transfer of the matter back to the District of South Carolina for further proceedings (id. at 7-8). The report warned the plaintiff that failing to object "in accordance with the provisions of § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal any order based on factual and legal conclusions to which no objection was timely made" (id. at 8). The plaintiff did not file objections, and the case was returned to this court by order entered April 9, 2021, and opened at case number 6:21-cv-01322-HMH-KFM (docs. 37; 38).
On May 6, 2021, upon review, the undersigned issued an order informing the plaintiff that his complaint was subject to dismissal as drafted and providing him with time to file an amended complaint to correct the deficiencies noted in the order (doc. 40). The plaintiff was informed that if he failed to file an amended complaint or cure the deficiencies outlined in the order, the undersigned would recommend that his claims be dismissed (id. at 7-8). The plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint within the time provided; accordingly, the undersigned recommends that the instant matter be dismissed.
ALLEGATIONS
The plaintiff, a pretrial detainee at the Spartanburg County Detention Center ("the Detention Center"), brings this action alleging violations of his constitutional rights by the defendants when he was arrested in October 2018 (docs. 1; 1-1). At the time he filed this case, the plaintiff had three pending charges in the Greenville County Court of General Sessions. See Greenville County Public Index, https://publicindex.sccourts.org/Greenville/Publiclndex/PISearch.aspx (enter the plaintiff's name and 2018A233029970, 2018A233029971, 2018A233029972) (last visited May 28, 2021). However, on December 27, 2019, the state criminal charges were adopted for federal prosecution. Id.; see United States v. Stiebel, C/A No. 6:19-cr-01014-DCC-1 (D.S.C.). The plaintiff plead guilty on May 24, 2021 to conspiracy to defraud the United States and the transportation of stolen vehicles. United States v. Stiebel, C/A No. 6:19-cr-01014-DCC-1, at doc. 152.
Phillips v. Pitt Cnty. Mem. Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 180 (4th Cir. 2009) (courts "may properly take judicial notice of matters of public record."); Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Coil, 887 F.2d 1236, 1239 (4th Cir. 1989) ("We note that '[t]he most frequent use of judicial notice . . . is in noticing the content of court records.'").
The plaintiff alleges that when he was arrested by Chief Johnson in Georgia, there was no evidence that he had engaged in illegal acts (doc. 1-1 at 1-2). The plaintiff also alleges that the defendants made up false matters in order to tie the plaintiff to the robbery in question (id.). The plaintiff asserts that after his arrest he was jailed in Georgia without being read his rights or properly booked (id. at 3). The plaintiff also asserts that a hold was placed on him by South Carolina and that he was later extradited to South Carolina in violation of his constitutional rights (id.). In response to interrogatories from the Court, the plaintiff indicated that during this time he was held at the Taylor County Detention Center in Georgia and that Magistrate Judge John Terry presided over his extradition proceedings (doc. 18 at 2).
Due to these actions, the plaintiff asserts that he was kidnapped and taken hostage by the defendants (doc. 1-1 at 3). The plaintiff alleges that he is not challenging his pending criminal charges (id. at 6). For injuries, the plaintiff asserts that his arrest has caused him to lose his job, income, wife, equipment, bank account, and home, among other things (id. at 7). For relief, the plaintiff seeks money damages, the right to amend his complaint, and declaratory relief (docs. 1 at 6; 1-1 at 7-8).
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 complaint 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 complaint is subject to summary dismissal. As an initial matter, as noted by the Georgia case, the plaintiff has not alleged a claim regarding his extradition proceedings in Georgia, as his complaint does not mention the Georgia extradition proceedings (doc. 36 at 3-4). As noted above, the plaintiff did not object to that finding and was warned that failing to object "waives the right to challenge on appeal any order based on factual and legal conclusions to which no objection was timely made" (docs. 36 at 8; 37). As such, the plaintiff cannot bring a claim regarding his extradition in this matter, as the federal court in Georgia disposed of that issue when his case was pending there.
Federal Criminal Charges
Additionally, as recognized by the court in the Georgia case, although the plaintiff asserts that he does not challenge his criminal prosecutions - he does challenge them, as his allegations clearly contend that he is innocent of the crimes for which he has been charged, seeking money damages relating to the ongoing alleged illegal criminal charges (see docs. 1; 1-1; 36 at 3). As noted above, the plaintiff's state criminal charges were adopted on December 27, 2019, for federal prosecution. United States v. Stiebel, C/A No. 6:19-cr-01014-DCC-1. Moreover, as noted, on May 24, 2021, the plaintiff pled guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States and the transportation of stolen vehicles. United States v. Stiebel, C/A No. 6:19-cr-01014-DCC-1, at doc. 152. To date, the plaintiff has not been sentenced; thus, because he seeks relief relating to the charges to which he has pled guilty (but has not yet been sentenced), he is barred from challenging them in this action. Hopkins v. 10 Unknown Agents, C/A No. 3:21-cv-00047-JMC-PJG, 2021 WL 914244, at *2 (D.S.C. Mar. 9, 2021) (citing Falcon v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 52 F.3d 137, 139 (7th Cir. 1995)). As such, to the extent the plaintiff's complaint can be construed as challenging his federal criminal charges, such a request is subject to summary dismissal in this action as such claims must be pursued in the plaintiff's criminal case.
Fourth Amendment Claims
The plaintiff's false arrest claims are likewise subject to summary dismissal. Section 1983 actions premised on malicious prosecution, false arrest, and/or false imprisonment are analyzed as actions claiming unreasonable seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment. See, e.g., Brown v. Gilmore, 278 F.3d 362, 367-68 (4th Cir. 2002) (recognizing that a plaintiff alleging a § 1983 false arrest claim needs to show that the officer decided to arrest him without probable cause to establish an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment); Rogers v. Pendleton, 249 F.3d 279, 294 (4th Cir. 2001) (stating claims of false arrest and false imprisonment "are essentially claims alleging a seizure of the person in violation of the Fourth Amendment").
However, "an indictment, fair upon its face, returned by a properly constituted grand jury, conclusively determines the existence of probable cause." Durham v. Horner, 690 F.3d 183, 189 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 117 n.19 (1975)); see also Provet, 2007 WL 1847849, at *5 (section 1983 claims of false arrest and malicious prosecution were precluded because of indictment). This Court, as noted above, has taken judicial notice of the plaintiff's pending federal criminal proceedings, including a grand jury indictment for conspiracy, two counts of interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle, and interstate transportation of stolen property. See United States v. Stiebel, C/A No. 6:19-cr-01014-DCC-1, at doc. 3. The indictment in his criminal case acts as a bar to the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claims, and as such, they are subject to summary dismissal.
RECOMMENDATION
By order issued May 6, 2021, the undersigned provided the plaintiff an opportunity to correct the defects identified in his complaint and further warned the plaintiff that if he failed to timely 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 (doc. 40). The plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint within the time provided. Accordingly, in addition to the reasons discussed herein, this action should be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with a court order. 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, directing the district court 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)); see also Bing v. Brivo Sys., LLC, 959 F.3d 605 (4th Cir. 2020). The attention of the parties is directed to the important notice on the following page.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
s/ Kevin F. McDonald
United States Magistrate Judge May 28, 2021
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).