Cooper v. Caseworker Messy ( 2023 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Roshawn E. Cooper, ) C/A No.: 1:23-17-MGL-SVH ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) ORDER AND NOTICE Caseworker Messy and Doctor ) Allen, ) ) Defendants. ) ) Roshawn E. Cooper (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this complaint on January 3, 2023. Pursuant to 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. I. Factual and Procedural Background Plaintiff’s complaint states: Mr. Cooper signing an case against them because Mr. Cooper been violated against his right of serving time at this G.W. Bryant Psychiatric Hospital on 2/1/2022 and your Honor Mr. Cooper spent 30 days in custody like Mr. Cooper supposed too and the crime date been 12/14/2021 so it some prove that 1/12/2022 and need to settle this case before 2 or 3 years period of time to be exapted above some issue & matters & situation that thee due date been written state team, before the time it happen. And Cooper had an seizure in Novant Hospital in Charlotte, N.C. on 8/22/2020 and Cooper Doctor say Cooper doesn’t suppose too take any more medicine so let get on the right foot of having a settlement of getting Cooper full back in pay back in 1996 of disability check 3 SSI check benefit and send Cooper bacc too home in Myrtle Beach, S.C.24577 too get [illegible]. [ECF No. 1]. 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. , 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 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, he has failed to identify any specific Constitutional provisions or federal statutes that pertain to his case. As to the second requirement, Plaintiff’’s allegations are unintelligible and do not show he is entitled him to relief. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s amended complaint is subject to summary dismissal for failure to meet the minimal requirements for the filing of a complaint. NOTICE CONCERNING AMENDMENT Plaintiff may attempt to correct the defects in his complaint by filing an amended complaint by March 16, 2023, 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 court that the claims specified above be dismissed without leave for further amendment. IT IS SO ORDERED. PP Ut Slalger February 23, 2023 Shiva V. Hodges Columbia, South Carolina United States Magistrate Judge