Luckett v. Simon et al
Filing
21
OPINION and ORDER: Plaintiff shall have until Wednesday, November 27, 2013, to submit an amended complaint to this court which includes all the relief he seeks. If Plaintiff submits an amended complaint, an evaluation of his allegations and requested relief will be conducted. Failure to submit an amended complaint by the date above will result in the dismissal of this matter without further notification. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 11/13/2013. (abuc) Modified on 11/13/2013 (abuc, ).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Mr. Leroy Luckett,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Ms. S. Bracey Simon, Lee Correctional
)
Postal/Mailroom Staff;
)
Associate Warden J.J. Brooks, Jr.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )
C/A NO. 0:13-2115-CMC-PJG
OPINION and ORDER
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s pro se complaint, filed in this court pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(d), DSC, this
matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for pre-trial proceedings and
a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On September 26, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued
a Report recommending that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and
service of process. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for
filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. After receiving
two extensions of time, Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Report on November 6, 2013.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo
determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is
made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by
1
the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b).
After conducting a de novo review as to Plaintiff’s objections to the Report, and considering
the record, the applicable law, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and
Plaintiff’s objections, the court agrees with the conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. However, the
court determines that Plaintiff should be given an opportunity to amend his complaint as addressed
below.
Plaintiff’s objections are conclusory and repetitive reassertions of the factual allegations
contained in the complaint and his belief that he is entitled to relief. At the end of his fifty-eight (58)
pages of objections, Plaintiff indicates that together with an order vacating his state court conviction,
Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages for the alleged violations of his constitutional
rights. See Obj. at 56-57 (ECF No. 20). Plaintiff did not include this requested relief in his
complaint, nor has he amended his complaint or sought leave to do so.
A civil rights action under § 1983 is the appropriate vehicle to challenge the conditions of
confinement, but not the fact or length of the confinement. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 49899 (1973). Additionally, “a state prisoner’s label for his claim cannot be controlling . . . .” Harvey
v. Horan, 278 F.3d 370, 378 (4th Cir. 2002). In order for a state prisoner to challenge the fact or
duration of his confinement (which Plaintiff clearly does), a state prisoner must seek federal habeas
corpus relief or the appropriate state relief instead. Wilkerson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78 (2005).
“[A] state prisoner’s § 1983 action is barred (absent prior invalidation) – no matter the relief sought
(damages or equitable relief), no matter the target of the prisoner’s suit (state conduct leading to
conviction or internal prison proceedings) – if success in that action would necessarily demonstrate
2
the invalidity of confinement or its duration.” Id. at 81-83. Cf. Preiser, supra, 411 U.S. at 487
(habeas relief is available “to attack future confinement and obtain future releases.”).
As noted by the Magistrate Judge, the substance of Plaintiff’s “complaint” is that his
conviction is not sound and that the court should give him a “do-over” on the dismissal of his
previous petition under 28 U.S.C. § 22541 based upon Defendants’ alleged denial of his right of
access to the court. However, while Plaintiff clearly seeks an order vacating his state court
convictions, he now asserts that he seeks monetary damages, something he did not include in his
original complaint.
Accordingly, Plaintiff shall have until Wednesday, November 27, 2013, to submit an
amended complaint to this court which includes all the relief he seeks. If Plaintiff submits an
amended complaint, an evaluation of his allegations and requested relief will be conducted. Failure
to submit an amended complaint by the date above will result in the dismissal of this matter without
further notification.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Columbia, South Carolina
November 13, 2013
1
See Luckette v. Bodison, D.S.C. Civil Action No. 0:09-1101-CMC-PJG.
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?