Opinion
2:21-cv-03135-BHH-MGB
01-18-2022
Joseph D. Paschal, Plaintiff, v. J. Reuben Long Detention Center, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MARY GORDON BAKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Joseph D. Paschal (“Plaintiff”), a state detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), the undersigned is authorized to review the Complaint and to submit a recommendation to the United States District Judge. For the following reasons, the undersigned recommends that this action be summarily dismissed, without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff appears to bring this action pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment based on the food service at the J. Reuben Long Detention Center. More specifically, Plaintiff alleges that his “nutritional rights” are being violated based on insufficient/disproportionate meal portions and caloric intake. (Dkt. No. 1 at 7.) After reviewing Plaintiff's Complaint, the undersigned issued an order notifying Plaintiff that his pleading was subject to summary dismissal for failure to state a claim. (Dkt. No. 6.) The undersigned provided Plaintiff an opportunity to cure the deficiencies in his pleading by filing an amended complaint. The order warned Plaintiff that failure to file an amended complaint or cure the pleading deficiencies within twenty-one days would result in summary dismissal. To date, Plaintiff has not filed any amended pleading or factual allegations, and the time to comply with the undersigned's order has lapsed.
The undersigned also informed Plaintiff that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) barred multiple prisoner plaintiffs from joining their claims together in one action. (See Dkt. No. 6 at 1.) Accordingly, the Court terminated the two other detainees initially named as plaintiffs in this action and assigned them separate civil action numbers. (See Case Nos. 2:21-cv-03657, -3658.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Plaintiff filed this action 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. This action also falls under the purview of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which allows a detainee like Plaintiff to seek “redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). To protect against possible abuses, these statutes charge the court with dismissing such prisoner complaints, or portions thereof, that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
As to failure to state a claim, a complaint filed in federal court 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). In order to satisfy this standard, a plaintiff must do more than make conclusory statements. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (explaining that the court need not accept as true a complaint's legal conclusions). Rather, the complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” See Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). When “it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations, ” Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), the complaint fails to state a claim.
Pro se complaints are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). A federal court is therefore charged with liberally construing a complaint filed by a pro se litigant to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Nonetheless, the requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the court can ignore a clear failure to allege facts that set forth a cognizable claim under Rule 8(a)(2). See Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 390- 91 (4th Cir. 1990); see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 684 (2009) (outlining pleading requirements under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for “all civil actions”).
DISCUSSION
As noted above, Plaintiff appears to bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on purported violations of his Fourteenth Amendment rights. To demonstrate a deprivation of rights under § 1983, the plaintiff must show that he was injured by a “person” acting under color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (stating that the plaintiff must allege two essential elements to establish a claim under § 1983: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law). “[I]nanimate objects such as buildings, facilities, and grounds are not ‘persons' and do not act under color of state law.” Sumpter v. Georgetown Cty. Det. Ctr., No. 0:20-cv-1770-JMC-PJG, 2020 WL 3060395, at *2 (D.S.C. June 8, 2020). Accordingly, the J. Reuben Long Detention Center-as the undersigned explicitly warned Plaintiff-is not a “person” amenable to suit under § 1983. (See Dkt. No. 6 at 3.) See e.g., Nelson v. Lexington Cty. Det. Ctr., No. 8:10-cv-2988-JMC, 2011 WL 2066551, at *1 (D.S.C. May 26, 2011) (dismissing § 1983 claim because Lexington County Detention Center, “as a building and not a person, ” was not amenable to suit under § 1983). Because Plaintiff has failed to name a proper defendant in this action, the Complaint is subject to summary dismissal.
Although the Complaint does not specifically allege which of Plaintiff's constitutional rights have been violated, the undersigned assumes Plaintiff is attempting to raise a Fourteenth Amendment violation based on the conditions of the food service at his facility. See Bryant v. Florence Cty. Det. Ctr., No. 4:15-cv-4442-RBH-TER, 2016 WL 8711591, at *2 n.1 (D.S.C. Feb. 19, 2016), adopted, 2016 WL 8715855 (D.S.C. Mar. 30, 2016) (explaining that a pretrial detainee's claims regarding conditions of confinement are evaluated under the Fourteenth Amendment, although the analysis is the same as that under the Eighth Amendment).
Moreover, to prevail on a claim involving unconstitutional conditions of confinement, a detainee must prove two elements: (1) that objectively the deprivation of a basic human need was sufficiently serious, and (2) that subjectively the prison officials acted with a “sufficiently culpable state of mind.” See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (referencing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 297-98 (1991)). To satisfy the objective prong, the plaintiff must demonstrate “a serious or significant physical or emotional injury resulting from the challenged conditions, or demonstrate a substantial risk of such serious harm resulting from the prisoner's unwilling exposure to the challenged conditions.” See Keystone v. Hinkle, No. 7:15-cv-00553, 2016 WL 6088993, at *5 (W.D. Va. Aug. 12, 2016), adopted, 2016 WL 6088346 (W.D. Va. Oct. 18, 2016) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Notably, the plaintiff must allege that he, himself, sustained the injury and deprivation. See Inmates v. Owens, 561 F.2d 560, 562-63 (4th Cir. 1977); see also Hummer v. Dalton, 657 F.2d 621, 625-26 (4th Cir. 1981) (holding that a prisoner cannot act as a “knight-errant” for others).
While the Complaint vaguely references possible side effects of malnutrition, the pleading fails to allege any injuries personally suffered by Plaintiff. Specifically, the Complaint states: “The medical side effects to these claims are really undetermined due to the extent of possible health related side effects that could very well be diagnosed due to improper diet and/or inappropriate rations. High blood pressure, abnormal blood sugar levels, rapid change in weight (unhealthy gains or [losses]) This list goes on!” (Dkt. No. 1 at 9.) As the undersigned previously explained, such bare, conclusory allegations are plainly insufficient to demonstrate that the food being consumed by Plaintiff is so inadequate as to present a substantial risk of serious physical harm to his health and wellbeing. (See Dkt. No. 6 at 3-4.) See also, e.g., Massey v. Goins, No. 5:19-cv-00030-FDW, 2019 WL 6040477, at *3 (W.D. N.C. Nov. 14, 2019) (concluding that plaintiff failed to state a claim for unconstitutional conditions of confinement where he did not allege any weight loss or any other significant injury as a result of the food being served at his facility); Taylor v. Richardson, No. 1:14-cv-3034-RDB, 2014 WL 5140347, at *1 (D. Md. Oct. 10, 2014) (dismissing complaint because plaintiff failed to provide any facts in support of his “conclusory assumption” that the food at his detention center was nutritionally inadequate, i.e., “that he became sick from the food served to him, that he lost a significant amount of weight . . . or that the number, portions, or frequency of meals caused a documented deterioration of his physical or mental health”). Without more, the Complaint simply does not contain sufficient factual allegations to raise a plausible claim under the Fourteenth Amendment at this time.
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that the Complaint be summarily dismissed, without prejudice and without issuance and service of process, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. “[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court 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) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk
United States District Court
Post Office Box 835
Charleston, South Carolina 29402
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in 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); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).