Breyan v. Greenville County Detention Center

IFNO TRH TEH UE NDIITSETDR ISCTTA OTFE SS ODUISTTHR ICCATR COOLUINRAT Michael Anthony Breyan, ) C/A No.: 1:20-1918-BHH-SVH ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Anderson County General Sessions; ) Anderson County Law ) Enforcement; Anderson County ) Probation Center; Appeal Courts in ) Virginia; Attorney General ) Sessions; Bank of America; Broad ) River Correctional Institution; ) Charleston District Courts; District ) Court Columbia; Greenville County ) ORDER AND NOTICE Courts; Greenville County ) Detention Center; Greenville ) County General Sessions; ) Greenville County Law ) Enforcement; Indianapolis, ) Indiana; Kershaw Department of ) Corrections; Kirkland R.N.E. ) Correctional Institution; Lee ) County Courts; Lee County ) Department of Corrections; Lee ) County General Sessions Court; ) Lieber Department of Corrections; ) McCormick Correctional ) Institution; Palmetto Bank; Perry ) Department of Corrections; ) Richland Police Department; SCDC ) Departments in Columbia; State ) Supreme Courts in Columbia; ) Turbeville Department of ) Corrections; Wells Fargo Bank; ) White House Staff; and ) Williamston, SC Police ) Department, ) ) Defendants. ) Michael Anthony Breyan (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this complaint against defendants. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.), the undersigned is authorized to review such complaints for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the district judge.

I. Factual and Procedural Background Plaintiff’s complaint does not contain the names of any defendants [ECF No. 1]. but the above-captioned defendants are listed on Plaintiff’s proposed summons [ECF No. 2]. Plaintiff’s complaint is non-sensical stating: Motion for (Due Process of Law) For Violation of (Supreme Law) known as United States Constitution. Number 8th “Free From Discrimination” So I request Demand and request rule (7th Amendment) Of the case Of the Decapitation that took place 2009 in England, or whatever place it took place For (Due Process of Law) I need something to take place with the following states and each government employer that played part of had acknowledgement of my rights bring violated and not correction of it which shows that it’s done with (Evil Intentions) As well as all liberty and personal property of each . . . . per rights and rule and laws of the Government Known as the United States Bill of Rights Constitution amendments amendment rule and #5th Amendment (Due Process of the law) and the Amount requested is to Paid in Full per each employer all ways that I is or was harmed in to paid and made up for by rules of (Compensatory Damages). [ECF No. 1] (emphasis in original).

I I. Discussion A. Standard of Review A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Pro se complaints are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. , 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). In evaluating a pro se complaint, the plaintiff’s allegations are assumed to be true. ., 529 F.2d 70, 74 (2d Cir. 1975). The mandated liberal construction afforded to pro se pleadings means that if the court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, it should do so. A federal court is charged with liberally construing a complaint filed by a pro se litigant to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case.

, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).

The requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts that set forth a claim currently cognizable in a federal district court. ., 901 F.2d 387, 390–91 (4th Cir. 1990). Although the court must liberally construe a pro se complaint, the United States Supreme Court has made it clear a plaintiff must do more than make conclusory statements to state a claim. , 556 U.S. 662, 677‒78 (2009); , 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Rather, the complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim that is plausible on its face, and the reviewing court need only accept as true the complaint’s factual allegations, not its legal conclusions. , 556 U.S. at 678‒79.

B. Analysis 1. Failure to Meet Pleading Requirements for Complaint Plaintiff has failed to meet the minimal standards for the filing of a complaint. A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 3. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), a pleading that states a claim for relief must contain: (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.

Plaintiff’s complaint does not meet the three requirements under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). As to the first requirement, Plaintiff failed to identify any specific Constitutional provisions or federal statutes that pertain to his case. As to the second requirement, Plaintiff provided a short, plain statement, but his statement does not show he is entitled to relief. ECF No. 1. Although Plaintiff states the relief sought, he does not provide a basis for such relief. .

Finally, Plaintiff did not comply with the requirement in Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a) that “[e]very pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by . . . a party personally if the party is unrepresented. Plaintiff failed to sign the complaint form he filed with the court. ECF No. 1.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to summary dismissal for failure to meet the minimal requirements for the filing of a complaint.

2. Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, “constrained to exercise only the authority conferred by Article III of the Constitution and affirmatively granted by federal statute.” , 147 F.3d 347, 352 (4th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, a federal court is required, , to determine if a valid basis for its jurisdiction exists “and to dismiss the action if no such ground appears.” at 352; Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”). Although the absence of subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time during the case, determining jurisdiction at the outset of the litigation is the most efficient procedure. , 190 F.3d 648, 654 (4th Cir. 1999).

There is no presumption that a federal court has jurisdiction over a case, , 191 F.3d 394, 399 (4th Cir. 1999), and a plaintiff must allege facts essential to show jurisdiction in his pleadings. , 298 U.S. 178, 189–90 (1936); , 762 F.2d 348, 350 (4th Cir. 1985) (“[P]laintiffs must affirmatively plead the jurisdiction of the federal court.”).

When a complaint fails to include “an affirmative pleading of a jurisdictional basis[,] a federal court may find that it has jurisdiction if the facts supporting jurisdiction have been clearly pleaded.” , 191 F.3d at (citations omitted). However, if the court, viewing the allegations in the light most favorable to a plaintiff, finds insufficient allegations in the pleadings, the court will lack subject-matter jurisdiction.

The two most commonly recognized and utilized bases for federal court jurisdiction are (1) diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and (2) federal question pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The allegations contained in this complaint do not fall within the scope of either form of the court’s limited jurisdiction.

Although Plaintiff alleges the court has jurisdiction pursuant to federal question, he fails to allege the case is one “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff alleges no specific violation of the Constitution or federal statute, and no federal question jurisdiction is evident from the face of the complaint.

While Plaintiff does not allege the court has jurisdiction pursuant to diversity, the undersigned has considered whether he could reasonably allege this basis for the court’s jurisdiction. The diversity statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), requires complete diversity of parties and an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000. Complete diversity of parties in a case means no party on one side may be a citizen of the same state as any party on the other side. , 437 U.S. 365, 373‒74 nn.13‒16 (1978).

Plaintiff identifies himself and Defendant as citizens of South Carolina.

ECF No. 1 at 2. Therefore, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to demonstrate complete diversity of citizenship, rendering the court without diversity jurisdiction.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to summary dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

3. No Persons Named To the extent Plaintiff is trying to bring claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he has not named any persons. It is well-settled that only persons may act under color of state law; therefore, a defendant in a § 1983 action must qualify as a person. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; ., 436 U.S. 658, 690 n.55 (1978) (noting that for purposes of § 1983, a person includes individuals and bodies politic and corporate). Courts have held that inanimate objects such as buildings, facilities, and grounds are not considered a person and do not act under color of state law. , No. 8:10-2988-JMC, 2011 WL 2066551, at *1 (D.S.C. May 26, 2011) (finding that the plaintiff failed to establish that the Lexington County Detention Center, “as a building and not a person, is amenable to suit under § 1983”). In this case prisons, courts, police departments, and the like are not persons, and are not subject to suit under § 1983.

4. Supervisory Liability To the extent defendants are sued in their capacities as employers, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under § 1983. The doctrine of supervisory liability is generally inapplicable to § 1983 suits, such that an employer or supervisor is not liable for the acts of his employees, absent an official policy or custom that results in illegal action. , 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978); , 690 F.2d 1133, 1142–43 (4th Cir. 1982). The Supreme Court explains that “[b]ecause vicarious liability is inapplicable to and § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” , 556 U.S. at 676; , 737 F.2d 368, 372–74 (4th Cir. 1984) (finding officials may be held liable for the acts of their subordinates, if the official is aware of a pervasive, unreasonable risk of harm from a specified source and fails to take corrective action as a result of deliberate indifference or tacit authorization).

NOTICE CONCERNING AMENDMENT Although Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to support a claim, he may be able to cure deficiencies in his complaint through amendment. , 807 F.3d 619 (4th Cir. 2015). Plaintiff may file an amended complaint by June 10, 2020, along with any appropriate service documents. Plaintiff is reminded an amended complaint replaces the original complaint and should be complete in itself. , 238 F.3d 567, 572 (4th Cir. 2001) (“As a general rule, an amended pleading ordinarily supersedes the original and renders it of no legal effect.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, the undersigned will conduct screening of the amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint or fails to cure the deficiencies identified above, the undersigned will recommend to the district judge that the claims be dismissed without leave for further amendment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

May 22, 2020 Shiva V. Hodges Columbia, South Carolina United States Magistrate Judge