Murray v. Simmons

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Kegan Murray, ) C/A No.: 1:21-1271-CMC-SVH ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) ORDER AND NOTICE South Carolina Department of ) Corrections; Tyger River ) Correctional Institution; and Ofc. ) Simmons, ) ) Defendants. ) ) Kegan Murray (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the South Carolina Department of Corrections (“SCDC”), Tyger River Correctional Institution (“TRCI”), and Ofc. Simmons (“Simmons”) (collectively “Defendants”). Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (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 alleges he was physically assaulted by several gang members on January 28, 2019, between 12:30 and 12:45 p.m. [ECF No. 1 at 5]. Plaintiff alleges Simmons left the dorm at 9 a.m. and had not returned at the time of the assault. Plaintiff states he injured ligaments in his ankle and suffered knots, bruises, and lacerations. . at 6. Plaintiff alleges Defendants failed to provide him safety and ensuring his well-being, health, and safety. .

II. Discussion A. Standard of Review Plaintiff filed his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which permits an indigent litigant to commence an action in federal court without prepaying the administrative costs of proceeding with the lawsuit. To protect against possible abuses of this privilege, the statute allows a district court to dismiss a case upon a finding that the action fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted or is frivolous or malicious. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii). A finding of frivolity can be made where the complaint lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. , 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). A claim based on a meritless legal theory may be dismissed sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). , 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).

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.

Erickson v. Pardus, 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. Weller v. Dept of Soc. Servs., 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. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 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. [gba/, 556 U.S. at 678-79.

B. Analysis 1. Failure to Protect To establish a claim for failure to protect, an inmate must show: (1) a “serious or significant physical or emotional injury” and (2) that prison officials exhibited deliberate indifference to inmate health and safety. DeZonta v. Angelone, 330 F.3d 630, 634 (4th Cir. 2003) Gnternal quotation marks omitted). To be deliberately indifferent, a prison official must “know of and disregard an objectively serious . . . risk of harm.” “[T]he official must be both aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a possibility of harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” , 511 U.S. at 837.

Here, Plaintiff has provided no information that Simmons was aware of any risk of harm to Plaintiff prior to the assault. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for failure to protect him from the assault.

3. SCDC and TRCI are not persons under § 1983 To state a plausible claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, an aggrieved party must sufficiently allege that he was injured by “the deprivation of any [of his or her] rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the [United States] Constitution and laws” by a “person” acting “under color of state law.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, § 1230 (3d ed. 2014). Only “persons” may act under color of state law; therefore, a defendant in a § 1983 action must qualify as a “person.” For example, inanimate objects such as buildings, facilities, and grounds are not “persons” and cannot act under color of state law. , 57 F. Supp. 2d 307, 310 (E.D. Va. 1999) (“[T]he Piedmont Regional Jail is not a ‘person,’ and therefore not amenable to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”); , 722 F. Supp. 1294, 1301 (E.D.N.C. 1989) (“Claims under § 1983 are directed at ‘persons’ and the jail is not a person amenable to suit.”).

Here, SCDC and TRI do not qualify as “persons” subject to suit under § 1983. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to summary dismissal.

3. Negligence To the extent Plaintiff seeks to bring a claim of negligence, the law is well-settled that a claim of negligence is not actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. , 474 U.S. 327, 335–36 n.3 (1986); , 474 U.S. 344, 347–48 (1986); , 52 F.3d 73 (4th Cir. 1995).

Therefore, any claim of negligence would be more appropriately brought in state court.

NOTICE CONCERNING AMENDMENT Plaintiff may attempt to correct the defects in his complaint by filing an amended complaint by MMay 24, 2021, 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 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 court that the claims be dismissed without leave for further amendment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

SP Ui Flag May 3, 2021 Shiva V. Hodges Columbia, South Carolina United States Magistrate Judge