Moore v. North Augusta Department of Public Safety ( 2024 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Richard Kareem Moore, ) C/A No.: 1:23-6110-JFA-SVH ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) North Augusta Department of ) ORDER AND NOTICE Public Safety, North Augusta Swat ) Team, and Richmond County ) Sheriff’s Office, ) ) Defendants. ) ) Richard Kareem Moore (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, is detained in the Aiken County Detention Center. He filed this complaint alleging a violation of his constitutional rights by North Augusta Department of Public Safety (“NADPS”), North Augusta Swat Team (“NAST”), and Richmond County Sheriff’s Office (“RCSO”) (“collectively Defendants”). Pursuant to 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 arrested on January 8, 2023, at the Sleep Inn Hotel. [ECF No. 1]. He was in a room with “Ashley,” who he alleges officer tricked into consenting to a search of the room. . at 2. Although he admits that he stated the drugs in the room were his, Plaintiff alleges he was still “out of it” from being asleep and that he had not seen any drugs of any kind. He alleges they also seized money from his pocket. . Plaintiff claims on April 6, 2023, his lawyer advised him he was a murder suspect. He claims he was held on falsified drug trafficking charges. He alleges he has been told there is no video of his arrest and generally alleges evidence tampering. 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. Defendants are not Persons 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.” In this case, Defendants are not “persons” subject to suit under § 1983. A sheriff’s department, detention center, or task force is a group of officers or buildings that is not considered a legal entity subject to suit , 27 F. App’x 173, 178 (4th Cir. 2001) (finding that the medical department of a prison is not a person pursuant to § 1983); , 750 F. Supp. 1131 (S.D. Fla. 1990) (dismissing city police department as improper defendant in § 1983 action because not “person” under the statute); , 578 F. Supp. 1368, 1370 (N.D. Ga. 1984) (dismissing police department as party defendant because it was merely a vehicle through which city government fulfills policing functions). Accordingly, Defendants are subject to summary dismissal. 3. Abstention Plaintiff’s complaint relates to state criminal charges currently pending against him. In , 401 U.S. 37 (1971), the Supreme Court held a federal court should not equitably interfere with state criminal proceedings “except in the most narrow and extraordinary of circumstances.” , 75 F.3d 881, 903 (4th Cir. 1996). The Court noted courts of equity should not act unless the moving party has no adequate remedy at law and will suffer irreparable injury if denied equitable relief. , 401 U.S. at 43–44 (citation omitted). From and its progeny, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has culled the following test to determine when abstention is appropriate: “(1) there are ongoing state judicial proceedings; (2) the proceedings implicate important state interests; and (3) there is an adequate opportunity to raise federal claims in the state proceedings.” , 38 F.3d 1392, 1396 (4th Cir. 1994) (citing , 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982)). Plaintiff states he is facing criminal charges, which satisfies the first part of the test. The second part of the test is met because the Supreme Court has noted “the States’ interest in administering their criminal justice systems free from federal interference is one of the most powerful of the considerations that should influence a court considering equitable types of relief.” , 479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986). The Fourth Circuit has addressed the third criterion in noting “‘that ordinarily a pending state prosecution provides the accused a fair and sufficient opportunity for vindication of federal constitutional rights.’” , 75 F.3d at 904 (quoting , 421 U.S. 117, 124 (1975)). Plaintiff can pursue his claims related to the legality of his detention during the disposition of his criminal charges. Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiff seeks interference in his state criminal case, the complaint is subject to summary dismissal. , 401 U.S. at 43–44. NOTICE CONCERNING AMENDMENT Plaintiff may attempt to correct the defects in his complaint by filing an amended complaint by January 25, 2024, 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 FRanzier, 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 the district judge dismiss the complaint without leave for further amendment. IT IS SO ORDERED. pont fege January 4, 2024 Shiva V. Hodges Columbia, South Carolina United States Magistrate Judge