Bryant v. Thompson ( 2020 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Jeffery J. Bryant, ) C/A No.: 1:20-1481-SAL-SVH ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ORDER AND NOTICE ) Phillip E. Thompson, Sheriff in his ) official capacity; J. Reuben Long ) Detention Center, ) ) Defendants. ) ) Jeffery J. Bryant (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Sheriff Phillip E. Thompson and J. Reuben Long Detention Center (“Detention Center”) (collectively “Defendants”), alleging violations of his constitutional rights. 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 alleges that on January 27, 2020, he slipped and fell while incarcerated at Detention Center. [ECF No. 1 at 5]. He claims there was no sign warning the floor was wet. . He alleges his lower back is hurt and that he has a knot the size of a tennis ball on his upper shoulder. . at 6. He states he was provided muscle relaxers for seven days, but is now only provided ibuprofen. . He requests treatment from an outside medical provider and $140,000 for future treatment. . 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). 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. Sheriff Thompson Plaintiff names Sheriff Thompson as a defendant but does not state any allegations against Thompson. To the extent Thompson is sued in his capacity as Sheriff or related to his responsibility for Detention Center, 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). 2. Detention Center 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, Plaintiff names Detention Center, which is a facility used primarily to house detainees awaiting trial in state court. Because Detention Center is not a person amenable to suit under § 1983, the undersigned recommends Plaintiff’s complaint be summarily dismissed. 3. Negligence To the extent Plaintiff claims Defendants were negligent, related either to his fall or subsequent treatment, his claims must fail. 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); , 52 F.3d 73 (4th Cir. 1995) (noting that bars an action under § 1983 for negligent conduct). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to summary dismissal. NOTICE CONCERNING AMENDMENT Plaintiff may attempt to correct the defects in his complaint by filing an amended complaint by May 11, 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 court that the claims be dismissed without leave for further amendment. IT IS SO ORDERED. April 20, 2020 Shiva V. Hodges Columbia, South Carolina United States Magistrate Judge