Opinion
C/A No. 4:08-CV-4154-RBH-TER.
February 10, 2009
Report and Recommendation
Background of this Case
The plaintiff is a resident of Lamar, South Carolina. She has brought suit against three local offices of the South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles ("DMV") and the Florence Office of the Social Security Administration. The "STATEMENT OF CLAIM" portion of the complaint reveals that this civil action arises out of the defendants' alleged failure to process the plaintiff's name change. In her prayer for relief, the plaintiff seeks a court order directing each defendant to change the plaintiff's name, issuance of a new Social Security card, issuance of a new driver's license, and "monetary fees[.]"
The plaintiff's exhibits indicate that, on South Carolina DMV records, the plaintiff is listed as Melanie Kelley Mitchell. See Entry No. 1-2, at pages 3-7. The plaintiff wishes to have her name changed to Melanie Kelley. Plaintiff should look to S.C. Code Ann. § 15-49-10, et al. and/or S.C. Code Ann. § 20-3-180 for guidance on this process.
Discussion
Under established local procedure in this judicial district, a careful review has been made of the pro se pleadings. The review has been conducted in light of the following precedents: Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); Nasim v. Warden, Maryland House of Correction, 64 F.3d 951 (4th Cir. 1995) ( en banc); Todd v. Baskerville, 712 F.2d 70 (4th Cir. 1983); Boyce v. Alizaduh, 595 F.2d 948 (4th Cir. 1979) (recognizing the district court's authority to conduct an initial screening of any pro se filing); Loe v. Armistead, 582 F.2d 1291 (4th Cir. 1978); and Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). The plaintiff is a pro se litigant, and thus his pleadings are accorded liberal construction. See Erickson v. Pardus, ___ U.S. ___, 75 U.S.L.W. 3643, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081, 127 S.Ct. 2197 (2007) ( per curiam); Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9-10 n. 7 (1980) ( per curiam); and Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972). When a federal court is evaluating a pro se complaint or petition, the plaintiff's or petitioner's allegations are assumed to be true. Fine v. City of New York, 529 F.2d 70, 74 (2nd Cir. 1975). Even under this less stringent standard, the complaint is subject to summary dismissal. The requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts which set forth a claim currently cognizable in a federal district court. Weller v. Department of Social Services, 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990).
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (DSC), the undersigned is authorized to review such complaints for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the District Court.
Boyce has been held by some authorities to have been abrogated in part, on other grounds, by Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (insofar as Neitzke establishes that a complaint that fails to state a claim, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), does not by definition merit sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) [formerly 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)], as "frivolous").
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, but a district court may not rewrite a petition or complaint to include claims that were never presented, Barnett v. Hargett, 174 F.3d 1128, 1133 (10th Cir. 1999), or construct the plaintiff's or petitioner's legal arguments for him or her, Small v. Endicott, 998 F.2d 411, 417-18 (7th Cir. 1993), or "conjure up questions never squarely presented" to the court, Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).
Generally, a case can be originally filed in a federal district court if there is diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 or there if there is so-called "federal question" jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, "constrained to exercise only the authority conferred by Article III of the Constitution and affirmatively granted by federal statute." In re Bulldog Trucking, Inc., 147 F.3d 347, 352 (4th Cir. 1998). Since federal courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction, there is no presumption that the court has jurisdiction. Pinkley, Inc. v. City of Frederick, 191 F.3d 394, 399 (4th Cir. 1999) ( citing Lehigh Mining Mfg. Co. v. Kelly, 160 U.S. 327, 337 (1895)). Accordingly, a federal court is required, sua sponte, to determine if a valid basis for its jurisdiction exists, "and to dismiss the action if no such ground appears." Bulldog Trucking, 147 F.3d at 352.
"[T]he facts providing the court jurisdiction must be affirmatively alleged in the complaint." Davis v. Pak, 856 F.2d 648, 650 (4th Cir. 1988) ( citing McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178 (1936)). To this end, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(1) requires that the complaint provide "a short plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends[.]" If, however, the complaint does not contain "an affirmative pleading of a jurisdictional basis, the federal court may find that it has jurisdiction if the facts supporting jurisdiction have been clearly pleaded." Pinkley, Inc., 191 F.3d at 399 ( citing 2 Moore's Federal Practice § 8.03[3] (3rd edition 1997)).
Although the absence of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time during the case, determining jurisdiction at the outset of the litigation is the most efficient procedure. Lovern v. Edwards, 190 F.3d 648, 654 (4th Cir. 1999). If the court, viewing the allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, finds insufficient allegations in the pleadings, the court will lack subject matter jurisdiction. Id.
The South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles is an agency of the State of South Carolina. See S.C. Code Ann. § 56-1-5:
§ 56-1-5. Department of Motor Vehicles Established; transfer of power from the Department of Public Safety; appointment, powers, and duties of the Executive Director; independent review.
(A) The South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles is hereby established as an administrative agency of the state government.
(B) Upon the signature of the Governor, all functions, powers, duties, responsibilities, and authority statutorily exercised by the Motor Vehicle Division and the Motor Carrier Services unit within the Department of Public Safety are transferred to and devolved upon the Department of Motor Vehicles.
(C) The Executive Director of the Department of Motor Vehicles shall be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. The executive director shall serve at the pleasure of the Governor.
(D) The executive director is the executive and administrative head of the Department of Motor Vehicles. The executive director shall administer the policies defined by the department and the affairs of the department.
(E) The executive director may appoint assistants, deputies, and employees as the executive director considers necessary and proper to administer the affairs of the department and may prescribe their duties, powers, and functions.
(F) The Legislative Audit Council shall conduct an independent review of the Department of Motor Vehicles every three years.
(S.C. Code Ann. § 56-1-5, which was added by 2003 S.C. Act No. 51, effective June 5, 2003.)
Since it is a state agency, the South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles is entitled to summary dismissal because it is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment, which divests this court of jurisdiction to entertain a suit brought against the State of South Carolina or its integral parts, such as a state agency or department. See, e.g., Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina State Ports Authority, 535 U.S. 743 (2002); Board of Trustees of University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001); Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000); Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999); Pennhurst State School Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (although express language of Eleventh Amendment only forbids suits by citizens of other States against a State, Eleventh Amendment bars suits against a State filed by its own citizens); Belcher v. South Carolina Board of Corrections, 460 F. Supp. 805, 808-809 (D.S.C. 1978); and Simmons v. South Carolina State Highway Dept., 195 F. Supp. 516, 517 (E.D.S.C. 1961).
The United States cannot be sued without its express consent, and express consent is a prerequisite to a suit against the United States. United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212 (1983). The bar of sovereign immunity cannot be avoided by naming federal officers or federal employees as defendants. Gilbert v. Da Grossa, 756 F.2d 1455, 1458 (9th Cir. 1985). Cf. Hawaii v. Gordon, 373 U.S. 57, 58 (1963). Similarly, the bar of sovereign immunity cannot be avoided by the filing of a suit against a federal agency or a federal department. See Campbell v. United States, 496 F. Supp. 36, 37-38 n. * (E.D. Tenn. 1980). Hence, the Social Security Administration is also subject to summary dismissal.
Recommendation
Accordingly, it is recommended that the District Court summarily dismiss the abovecaptioned case without prejudice and without issuance and service of process for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. See also In Re Prison Litigation Reform Act, 105 F.3d 1131 (6th Cir. 1997) (pleadings by prisoners and non-prisoners should also be screened); and Fitzgerald v. First East Seventh Street Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 363-364 (2nd Cir. 2000) ("District courts . . . are . . . capable of determining when an action is frivolous. Indeed, as courts of first instance, district courts are especially likely to be exposed to frivolous actions, and thus have an even greater need for inherent authority to dismiss such actions quickly in order to preserve scarce judicial resources."). The plaintiff's attention is directed to the important Notice on the next page.
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The plaintiff is advised that she may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Court Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. In the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court judge need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must "only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." Diamond v. Colonial Life Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005).Specific written objections must be filed within ten (10) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). The time calculation of this ten-day period excludes weekends and holidays and provides for an additional three (3) days for filing by mail. Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a) (e). Filing by mail pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Larry W. Propes, Clerk
United States District Court
Post Office Box 2317
Florence, South Carolina 29503Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984); and Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985).