Buckner v. Porter ( 2021 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Bruce Allen Buckner, ) C/A No.: 0:21-3873-TLW-SVH ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) vs. ) ) ORDER AND NOTICE York County Solicitor Daniel ) Porter, ) ) ) Defendant. ) Bruce Allen Buckner (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights by York County Solicitor Daniel Porter (“Defendant”). Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 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 Defendant maliciously prosecuted him after the police violated his constitutional rights to arrest him. [ECF No. 1 at 4]. Plaintiff alleges Defendant “obstructed justice by knowingly and intentionally concealing and destroying evidence favorable to the Plaintiff.” . Plaintiff request monetary damages. . at 4. 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 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). , 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). Pro se complaints are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. , 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). 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). 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. Nevertheless, 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). B. Analysis 1. Prosecutorial Immunity Plaintiff sues Defendant for actions associated with the prosecution of his criminal charges. Prosecutors have absolute immunity for activities in or connected with judicial proceedings, such as a criminal trial, bond hearings, bail hearings, grand jury proceedings, and pretrial hearings. , 509 U.S. 259 (1993); , 208 F.3d 467 (4th Cir. 2000). Because Plaintiff’s claims address actions taken by Defendant in connection with the judicial proceedings for his criminal charges, these claims are barred by prosecutorial immunity. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends Defendant be summarily dismissed from this case. 2. Damages are Barred by Plaintiff’s complaint seeks monetary damages related to the prosecution of his criminal charges. [ECF No. 1]. Such a claim is barred by the holding in , 512 U.S. 477 (1994). In , the United States Supreme Court held that in order to recover damages for imprisonment in violation of the Constitution, the imprisonment must first be successfully challenged: We hold that, in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, . . . a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such a determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983. at 486–87. When addressing a damages claim, “the district court must consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if it would, the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated.” , 512 U.S. at 487. This is known as the “favorable termination” requirement. , 535 F.3d 262, 263 (4th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff fails to demonstrate or allege that he has successfully challenged his federal conviction. Accordingly, any claims he may be attempting to pursue based on his conviction or sentence are barred by 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. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619 (4th Cir. 2015). Plaintiff may file an amended complaint by December 24, 2021, along with any appropriate service documents. Plaintiff is reminded an amended complaint replaces the original complaint and should be complete in itself. See Young v. City of Mount Ranier, 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. pont Pogo December 3, 2021 Shiva V. Hodges Columbia, South Carolina United States Magistrate Judge