Opinion
C/A 9:23-04193-RMG-MHC
12-15-2023
Kaiwan Wallace, Plaintiff, v. Lenders Loan Company, Beaufort, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Molly H. Cherry United States Magistrate Judge
This is a civil action filed by Plaintiff Kaiwan Wallace, a pro se litigant. 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 an Order entered October 31, 2023, Plaintiff was directed to file certain documents to bring his case into proper form. He was also apprised of material deficits in the Complaint and given time to file an amended complaint. ECF No. 5. Plaintiff has not filed all the documents necessary to bring his case into proper form and has not filed an amended complaint.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee at the Beaufort County Detention Center (BCDC). Records from Beaufort County indicate that Plaintiff has pending charges for burglary-first degree (case number 2021A0710400250) and use of vehicle without permission for temporary purpose only, unconnected to other crime (case number 2021A0710400247). See Beaufort County Fourteenth Judicial Circuit Public Index, https://publicindex.sccourts.org/Beaufort/PublicIndex/PISearch.as px [search case numbers listed above] (last visited Dec. 14, 2023).
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).
Plaintiff wrote a state court case number (2021cv0710401035) at the top of his Complaint. See ECF No. 1 at 1. Records from Beaufort County indicate that on November 5, 2021, Lenders Loans of Beaufort (the plaintiff in the state court action) initiated a claim and delivery filing against Kaiwan Wallace (the defendant in the state court action). The case was disposed on November 22, 2021, with a disposition of “Find for Plaintiff.”
In his Complaint, Plaintiff submitted two statements of his claim. In the first, he writes:
Dismissing a counter claim, crossclaim, or third-party clam. A stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared, may order the plaintiff to pay all or part of the costs of that previous action: identifies any parent corpation and any publicly held corporation owning 10% or more of its stock, promptly file a supplemental statement if any required information changes.ECF No. 1 at 3 (errors in original). In the second he writes:
Wrong places at right time
Siver suit fall to sleep
Suit case full money late
and had place to go walking do
The road look for workId. at 5 (errors in original). Plaintiff submitted two requests for relief. He writes:
If a Plaintiff who has once dismissed an action in any court commences an action based upon or including the same claim against the same defendant, the court may make such order for the payment of costs of the action previously dismissed as it may, deem proper and may stay the proceeding in the action until the plaintiff has complied with order. Subject to the provision of Rule 23 Rule 66 and of any statute, an action may be dismissed by the plaintiff with order of court (A) filing and serving a notice of dismissal at any tim before service by the adverse party of an an answer or motion for summary judgement whichever first occurs, a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties the court may order the plaintiff to pay all costs of that previous actECF No. 1 at 4 (errors in original). Plaintiff also requests “[d]ismissing a counter claim cross claim, or third-party clam a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared[.]” Id. at 7 (errors in original).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
This case is before the Court for pre-service review. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also In re Prison Litigation Reform Act, 105 F.3d 1131, 1134 (6th Cir. 1997) (pleadings by non-prisoners should also be screened). Under established local procedure in this judicial district, a careful review has been made of the pro se Amended Complaint herein pursuant to the procedural provisions of § 1915, 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).
Section 1915 permits an indigent litigant to commence an action in federal court without paying the administrative costs of proceeding with the lawsuit. However, to protect against possible abuses of this privilege, the statute allows a district court to dismiss the case upon a finding that the action “is frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A finding of frivolousness can be made where the complaint “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. at 31. Hence, under § 1915(e)(2)(B), a claim based on a meritless legal theory may be dismissed sua sponte. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. at 327.
This Court is required to liberally construe pro se complaints, which are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); King v. Rubenstein, 825 F.3d 206, 214 (4th Cir. 2016). Nonetheless, 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 (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
A. Jurisdiction
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, see Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994), and a district court is charged with ensuring that all cases before it are properly subject to such jurisdiction. In re Bulldog Trucking, Inc., 147 F.3d 347, 352 (4th Cir. 1998). The Complaint filed in this case is subject to summary dismissal without service of process because it fails to state a claim which this Court may consider under its federal question jurisdiction, See 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or its diversity jurisdiction, See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Plaintiff appears to assert that there is federal question jurisdiction and that he is bringing a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (§ 1983) against a state or local official. See ECF No. 1 at 6. However, Plaintiff failed to name any federal constitutional or statutory right he believes was violated and, thus, this court lacks jurisdiction over his claims. Additionally, as discussed further below, he has not named a state or local official as a defendant.
Section 1983 “‘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).
Plaintiff has not asserted that there is federal court jurisdiction based on diversity jurisdiction. Nor is there diversity jurisdiction based on the facts alleged. A district court may have jurisdiction of a civil action “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000...and is between - (1) citizens of different States...” 28 U.S.C. § 1332. However, Plaintiff has not alleged complete diversity of the parties. See Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 372-374 (1978) (Complete diversity of parties means that no party on one side may be a citizen of the same State as any party on the other side). Here, Plaintiff and Defendant both appear to be citizens of South Carolina.
B. Failure to State a Claim/Frivolous Claims
Even if Plaintiff can establish jurisdiction, this action is also subject to summary dismissal because Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim against Defendant. The Complaint is fairly characterized as being composed of what some courts have described as “buzz words” or “legalistic gibberish.” See, e.g., Rochester v. McKie, No. 8:11-CV-0797-JMC-JDA, 2011 WL 2671306 (D.S.C. Apr. 13, 2011), report and recommendation adopted, 2011 WL 2671228 (D.S.C. July 8, 2011). As such, a substantial portion of Plaintiff's allegations are so generally incomprehensible or filled with what could only be considered by a reasonable person as unconnected, conclusory, and unsupported comments or “gibberish,” that it is unclear what is to be made of them. See Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-537 (1974) (noting that federal courts lack power to entertain claims that are “so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit”); see also Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434 (2nd Cir. 1998); Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72 (4th Cir. 1994) (affirming dismissal of prisoner's suit as frivolous where allegations were conclusory and nonsensical on their face).
In his Complaint, Plaintiff fails to provide any specific factual information to support a claim that the named Defendant 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))). 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, this action is subject to summary dismissal because the named Defendant is not a state actor. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege (1) he or she suffered a deprivation of “rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States; and (2) the act or omission causing the deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, at 48 (1988); see also Loftus v. Bobzien, 848 F.3d 278, 284-85 (4th Cir. 2017). A person acts under color of state law when he “exercise[s] power ‘possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law.'” Davison v. Randall, 912 F.3d 666, 679 (4th Cir. 2019) (quoting West, 487 U.S. at 49). This requires that “the conduct allegedly causing the deprivation of a federal right be fairly attributable to the State.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Private conduct will not be deemed state action “unless the state has so dominated such activity as to convert it to state action.” (internal quotation marks omitted). Philips v. Pitt Cnty. Mem. Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 181 (4th Cir. 2009). Plaintiff has alleged no facts to indicate that Defendant, which appears to be a private company, is a state actor.
C. Appeal of State Court Civil Action
To the extent that Plaintiff is attempting to appeal the results of a state court action (case number 2021cv0710401035) to this court, the current action should be dismissed because federal district courts do not hear “appeals” from state court actions. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476-82 (1983) (a federal district court lacks authority to review final determinations of state or local courts because such review can only be conducted by the Supreme Court of the United States under 28 U.S.C. § 1257); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); see also Hulsey v. Cisa, 947 F.3d 246 (4th Cir. Jan. 17, 2020). To rule in favor of Plaintiff on claims filed in this action may require this court to overrule and reverse orders and rulings made in the state court. Such a result is prohibited under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Davani v. Virginia Dep't. of Transp., 434 F.3d 712, 719-720 (4th Cir. 2006); see also Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 293-294 (2005); Jordahl v. Democratic Party of Va., 122 F.3d 192, 201 (4th Cir. 1997).
D. Failure to State a Request for Relief
This action is also subject to summary dismissal because Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim for relief. See ECF No. 1 at 4, 7. Were this Court to find that Plaintiff's rights have been violated, but order no remedy, it would, in effect, be rendering an advisory opinion; such action is barred by Article III of the Constitution. Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 401 (1975); see also Bowler v. Young, 55 Fed.Appx. 187, 188 (4th Cir. 2003); Norvell v. Sangre de Cristo Dev. Co., 519 F.2d 370, 375 (10th Cir. 1975) (federal courts do not render advisory opinions).
E. State Law Claims
Additionally, to the extent Plaintiff may be attempting to bring a state law claim, it should be dismissed. As Plaintiff fails to state any federal claim, only the state law claims would remain, and federal courts are allowed to hear and decide state-law claims only in conjunction with federal-law claims, through the exercise of “supplemental jurisdiction.” See 28 U.S.C. §1367; Wisconsin Dep't of Corrs. v. Schacht, 524 U.S. 381, 387 (1998). Of course, a district court may have jurisdiction of a civil action based on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. However, as discussed above, Plaintiff has not alleged complete diversity of the parties. As Plaintiff has asserted no valid federal claim and there is no diversity jurisdiction, these claims are subject to summary dismissal as this Court should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367; see also United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966); Tigrett v. Rector and Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 290 F.3d 620, 626 (4th Cir. 2002) (affirming district court's dismissal of state law claims when no federal claims remained in the case); Lovern v. Edwards, 190 F.3d 648, 655 (4th Cir. 1999) (“[T]he Constitution does not contemplate the federal judiciary deciding issues of state law among non-diverse litigants”).
F. Failure to Get Case Into Proper Form
Finally, Plaintiff has failed to bring this case into proper form. In the October 2023 Order, Plaintiff was directed to bring the case into proper form by providing certain documents (a signed “Certification and Closing” section of the Complaint (ECF No. 1 at 13), a completed Form AO-239 or payment of the filing fee, a summons form listing Defendant, a signed and completed Form USM-285 listing Defendant, and a fully completed and signed pro se party's answers to Local Civil Rule 26.01 (D.S.C.) interrogatories form). Although Plaintiff filed a Form AO-239 and submitted a pro se party's answers to Local Rule 26.01 (D.S.C.) interrogatories form, he failed to provide the other required documents.
However, it appears that a number of Plaintiff's responses to questions on this form are unresponsive, including that he wrote “N/A” to the question asking him to state, as to each claim, whether it should be tried jury or non-jury and why. See ECF No. 8 at 1.
Plaintiff failed to provide all necessary documents to bring his case into proper form (he failed to sign and return the “Certification and Closing” of his Complaint, did not provide a fully completed summons form for Defendant, and did not provide a completed and signed Form USM-285 for Defendant). The time for Plaintiff to bring this case into proper form has passed, and he has failed to provide all of the required proper form documents. Plaintiff was specifically warned (ECF No. 5) that the failure to provide the necessary information within the timetable set forth in the Order would subject the case to dismissal. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41. Thus, in the alternative, it is recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice 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 further 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”).
Plaintiff's attention is directed to the important notice on the following page.
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. \0 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).