Jenkins v. Stirling et al

Filing 31

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court ADOPTS IN PART AND REJECTS IN PART the R & R. (Dkt. No. 15 ). This Court DISMISSES the claims without prejudice with respect to the allegations concerning the provisions of Restrictive Housing Unit ("RHU") policies and the grievance system at Evans Correctional Institution (Dkt. No. 15 ). This Court has not made a ruling on whether Plaintiff's constitutional right to access the court was violated. Defendants should directly respond to Plaintiff regarding his claim that Defendants denied him access to the court by failing to provide Plaintiff his legal boxes and copies of his legal documents in time to perfect an appeal. Signed by the Honorable Richard M. Gergel on 10/20/2016. (hcic, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Bobby C. Jenkins,

Plaintiff,
vs.
Brian Stirling; Wayne McCain; A. Jolley;
Willie Eagleton; and Charles West;
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 5: 16-cv-02588-RMG

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R & R") of the
Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 15), recommending partial summary dismissal of Plaintiffs case.
The Magistrate Judge recommends Plaintiffs case be dismissed without prejudice with respect
to the allegations concerning the provisions of photocopies, Restrictive Housing Unit ("RHU")
policies, and the grievance system at Evans Correctional Institution. (Jd). Plaintiff has filed
objections to the R & R. (Dkt. No. 20). For the reasons stated below, the Court ADOPTS in
part and REJECTS in part the R & R as an order of this Court.

I. Background
Plaintiff is incarcerated at Evans Correctional Institution ("Evans"), as part of the South
Carolina Department of Corrections ("SCDC") prison system. Through his complaint, Plaintiff
brings four claims pursuant to 42 U.S.c. § 1983. (See Dkt. No.1).
First, Plaintiff alleges his constitutional right to access the court was violated when he
was not allowed to access his legal boxes. (Id at 6). Plaintiff asserts he missed the filing
deadline for an appeal in state court because he was not allowed to access his legal boxes. (Id).

Second, Plaintiff contends his access to court rights were also violated when the only way for
him to obtain copies of his legal documents in a state court post-conviction relief ("PCR") action
was to pay $138.75 plus $18.00 in postage to the South Carolina Judicial Department. (Id at
10). Plaintiff asserts he is indigent and he is not obligated to immediately pay the South Carolina
Judicial Department when requesting photocopies of his legal documents. (ld at 11). Third,
Plaintiff contends his constitutional rights are being violated because the prison officials and
administration are violating the SCDC policy on placement of prisoners in the RHU at Evans.

(ld at 11-13). Finally, Plaintiff alleges his constitutional rights are being violated because the
inmate-grievance system at Evans is not operating as it is supposed to operate. (ld at 13-14).
On July 19,2016, Plaintiff filed apro se complaint against Defendants. (ld at 1).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 636(b)(1), and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.), the Magistrate
Judge is authorized to review all pretrial matters in such pro se cases and to submit findings and
recommendations to the district court. See also 28 U.S.c. §§ 1915(e), 1915(A) (as soon as
possible after docketing, district courts should review prisoner cases to determine whether they
are subject to summary dismissal). On September 1, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued an R & R
recommending partial summary dismissal of Plaintiff's case. (Dkt. No. 15 at 1). The Magistrate
Judge recommends Plaintiff s case be dismissed without prejudice with respect to Plaintiff s
claims concerning the provisions of photocopies, Restrictive Housing Unit ("RHU") policies,
and the grievance system at Evans Correctional Institution. (Jd). Additionally, the Magistrate
Judge recommends Defendants be "directed to respond to Plaintiff's allegations regarding denial
of access to court arising from the failure to provide his legal boxes to him in time to permit him
to perfect an appeaL" (Id. at 5). Plaintiff filed objections (Dkt. No. 20) to portions ofthe R & R
on September 12,2016.

2

II. Legal Standard
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. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court may "accept, reject, or modify,
in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(I). This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the R
& R or specified proposed findings or recommendation to which objection is made. Diamond v.

Colonial Life & Ace. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(I»;
accord Fed. R. Civ. P.

neb).

However, as to the portions of the R & R to which no objection is made, this Court "must
'only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.'" Diamondv. Colonial Life & Ace. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310,315 (4th Cir. 2005)
(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 71 advisory committee note). Additionally, the Court need not give any
explanation for adopting the R & R in the absence of specific objections by the parties. See

Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198,200 (4th Cir. 1983) ("Absent objection, we do not believe that
any explanation need be given for adopting the report.").
In reviewing this complaint, the Court is mindful of Plaintiffs pro se status. 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), and this court is charged with liberally construing the
pleadings of a pro se litigant to allow for the development of a potentially meritorious claim.

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,94 (2007). In evaluating a pro se complaint by this court, the
plaintiff's allegations are assumed to be true. De 'Lonta v. Angelone, 330 F.3d 630,630 n.t (4th
Cir. 2003). The requirement of a liberal construction does not mean, however, that the Court can

3

ignore a pro se plaintiffs clear failure in the pleadings to allege facts that set forth a cognizable
claim. See United States v. Wilson, 699 F.3d 789, 797 (4th Cir. 2012).
III. Discussion

Plaintiff objects to the R & R's recommendation that partial summary dismissal be
granted on two grounds. The Court will address each in tum.
First, Plaintiff maintains prisoners have a fundamental constitutional right to access the
court system. (Dkt No. 20 at 1). Plaintiff asserts his right to access the court was violated when
defendants did not give him his legal boxes. (Id at 2). Plaintiff argues, due to the deprivation of
his legal boxes by Defendants, Plaintiff cannot file "another successive" PCR or Habeas Corpus.

(Id at 2). However, the Plaintiffs objection is unnecessary. The Magistrate's R & R does not
recommend dismissal of Plaintiff s claim regarding the Defendants' failure to provide Plaintiff
his legal boxes, but instead directs the Defendants to respond to Plaintiff s claim. (Dkt. No. 15 at
5). Accordingly, the Plaintiffs objection is overruled.
Second, Plaintiff contends his complaint was not to be construed to claim his right to
access the court was violated when he did not receive free copies of his legal documents because
he is indigent. (Dkt. No. 20 at 4). Plaintiff explains, "I never said the defendants violated my
rights by not giving me free copies because copies aren't free, but they violated my constitutional
rights to access to the courts by not giving me access to my legal material to be able to obtain
copies." (Dkt. No. 20 at 3). SCDC PolicieslProcedures speak directly to Plaintiffs contention.

See GA-01.03, Inmate Access to the Courts, South Carolina Department of Corrections
Policies/Procedures. According to SCDC's Procedure 12.4, restitution will be created for
indigent inmates to pay for photocopies and their accounts will be debited for reimbursement

once funds become available. (Id.). Here, Plaintiff has not requested that the Defendants

4

provide him with free photocopies of his PCR documents. (See Dkt. No.1 at 10). Instead,
Plaintiff has requested that he be provided with photocopies of his PCR documents, which under
the SCDC PolicieslProcedures, he may pay for for at a later time. (Dkt. No. 20 at 3). Plaintiffs
objection is sustained and Defendants are directed to respond to Plaintiffs assertion that failure
to provide copies of his legal documents was a violation of his right to access the court.
Conclusion

For the reasons stated above the Court ADOPTS IN PART AND REJECTS IN PART
the R & R. (Dkt. No. 15). This Court DISMISSES the claims without prejudice with respect to
the allegations concerning the provisions of Restrictive Housing Unit ("RHU") policies and the
grievance system at Evans Correctional Institution (Dkt. No. 15). This Court has not made a
ruling on whether Plaintiffs constitutional right to access the court was violated. Defendants
should directly respond to Plaintiff regarding his claim that Defendants denied him access to the
court by failing to provide Plaintiff his legal boxes and copies of his legal documents in time to
prefect an appeal.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court Judge
October,(,Q 2016
Charleston, South Carolina

5