Littlejohn v. Patrick B Harris Psychiatric Hospital

Filing 12

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS recommending 1 Complaint filed by Quintin M Littlejohn be dismissed without prejudice. Objections to R&R due by 5/10/2007. Signed by Judge William M Catoe on 4/20/07. (ladd, )

Littlejohn v. Patrick B Harris Psychiatric Hospital

Doc. 12

6:07-cv-00903-RBH

Date Filed 04/20/2007

Entry Number 12

Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Quintin M. Littlejohn, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Patrick B. Harris Psychiatric Hospital, ) ) ) Defendant. ) _______________________________________ ) C/A No. 6:07-0903-RBH-WMC

Report and Recommendation

Background of this Case
T he plaintiff is a pre-trial detainee at the Patrick B. Harris Psychiatric Hospital in Anderson, South Carolina. In the above-captioned civil rights action, the plaintiff has brought suit against the Patrick B. Harris Psychiatric Hospital for placing him in "fetters"1 without bringing him before an Adjustment Committee. When the above-captioned case was received, it was not in "proper form." In an order filed in this case on April 4, 2007, the undersigned directed the plaintiff to submit a Statem ent of Assets and Answers to the Court's Special Interrogatories. The plaintiff has done so. Hence, the above-captioned case is now "in proper form." T he plaintiff is under an order of pre-filing review. See Graham v. Riddle, 554 F.2d 133, 134-135 & n. * (4th Cir. 1977).2 The plaintiff was confined in the South Carolina

"Fetters" is an archaic term for shackles or restraints. See 2 Kings 25:7 (Authorized Version of 1611 [" K in g Jam e s " version]): "And they slew the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes, and put out the eyes of Z e d e k ia h , and bound him with fetters of brass, and carried him to Babylon." The order of pre-filing review was entered on July 10, 1998, by the Honorable G. Ross Anderson, Jr., U n ite d States District Judge, in Quintin Littlejohn v. W illia m J. Clinton, President of the United States, Civil A c t i o n No. 6:98-1169-13AK. Judge Anderson's order authorizes the Clerk's Office to assign civil action n u m b e r s to the plaintiff's pleadings for docket control purposes.
2

1

Dockets.Justia.com

6:07-cv-00903-RBH

Date Filed 04/20/2007

Entry Number 12

Page 2 of 7

Departm ent of Corrections until May of 2003, when he "maxed out" his sentence for his 1982 co nviction for armed robbery entered in the Court of General Sessions for Cherokee County. Prior to his current incarceration, the plaintiff resided in Gaffney, South Carolina.3 The plaintiff's Answers to Court's Special Interrogatories (Entry No. 6) reveal that the plaintiff has been sent to the Patrick B. Harris Psychiatric Hospital for a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation in his pending criminal case, which concerns "Drug's [sic]." The

psychiatric evaluation was ordered by J. Queen of Gaffney, S.C." A trial has not yet been held in the plaintiff's criminal case. The plaintiff states that he has filed "appeals" with the municipal court, the Circuit Court, the federal district court, and the World Court.4

See pleadings in Quintin Littlejohn v. David Edwards Toyota; Mark Edwards; and All Agents in Active C o n c e r t , Civil Action No. 7:06-1012-RBH-W M C . This court m a y take judicial notice of Civil Action No. 7:061 0 1 2 - R B H - W M C . Aloe Creme Laboratories, Inc. v. Francine Co., 425 F.2d 1295, 1296 (5th Cir. 1970). See a ls o Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Coil, 887 F.2d 1236, 1239, 1989 U.S.App. LEXIS® 16328 (4th Cir. 1989)("W e n o t e that `the m o s t frequent use of judicial notice is in noticing the content of court records.'"); Mann v. P e o p le s First National Bank & Trust Co., 209 F.2d 570, 572 (4th Cir. 1954)(approving district court's taking j u d ic ia l notice of prior suit with sam e parties: "W e think that the judge below was correct in holding that he c o u ld take judicial notice of the proceedings had before him in the prior suit to which Mann and the Distilling C o m p a n y as well as the bank were parties."); and United States v. Parker, 956 F.2d 169, 171, 1992 U .S .A p p . LEXIS® 1319 (8th Cir. 1992). The plaintiff is obviously referring to the International Court of Justice. The International Court of Justice " i s a [j]udicial arm of the U n i t e d Nations." Black's Law Dictionary, (fifth edition, 1979), at page 732. The In te r n a tio n a l Court of Justice * * * has jurisdiction to give advisory opinions on m a tte r s of law and treaty construction when r e q u e s te d by the General Assem b ly, Security Council or any international agency authorized b y the General Assem b ly to petition for such opinion. It has jurisdiction, also, to settle legal d is p u te s between nations when voluntarily subm itte d to it. Its judgm e n ts m a y be enforced b y the Security C o u n c i l. Its jurisdiction and powers are defined by statute, to which all m e m b e r states of the U.N. [United Nations] are parties. Judges of such court are elected by th e General Assem b ly and Security Council of the U.N. S e e also Vera Gowlland-Debbas, The Relationship between the International Court of Justice and the Security C o u n c il in Light of the Lockerbie Case, 88 Am . J. Int'l L. 643 (October 1994)("The relationship between the In te r n a tio n a l Court of Justice and the Security Council m a y be approached from the perspective of the United N a tio n s Charter and the way it delim its com p e te n c e s between two principal UN organs and regulates the e x e r c is e of their concurrent powers."); Taslim O. Elias, The International Court of Justice and Some C o n te m p o r a r y Problems (1979); Josh Briggs, Com m e n t , Sur Place Refugee Status in the Context of V ie tn a m e s e Asylum Seekers in Hong Kong, 42 Am . U. L. Rev. 433, 457 (W in te r 1993); and Gregory Gelfand, I n t e r n a t io n a l Penal Transfer Treaties: The Case for an Unrestricted Multilateral Treaty, 64 Boston U. L. Rev.
4

3

(continued...) 2

6:07-cv-00903-RBH

Date Filed 04/20/2007

Entry Number 12

Page 3 of 7

D i s c u s s io n
Under established local procedure in this judicial district, a careful review5 has been m ad e of the pro se complaint (Entry No. 1) and the plaintiff's Answers to Court's Special Inte rrog ato ries (Entry No. 6) pursuant to the procedural provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The review has been conducted in light of the following precedents: Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 118 L.Ed.2d 340, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 1992 U.S. LEXIS® 2689 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324-325, 104 L.Ed.2d 338, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1989 U.S. LEXIS® 2231 (1989); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); Nasim v. Warden, Maryland House of Correction, 64 F.3d 951, 1995 U.S.App. LEXIS® 26108 (4th Cir. 1995)(en banc), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1177, 134 L.Ed.2d 219, 116 S.Ct. 1273, 1996 U .S. LEXIS® 1844 (1996); 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

(...continued)
5 6 3 , 568 & n. 17 (May 1984). The International Court of Justice is the successor to the Perm a n e n t Court of I n t e r n a t io n a l Justice. See Gowlland-Debbas, The Relationship between the International Court of Justice and th e Security Council in Light of the Lockerbie Case, supra, 88 Am . J. Int'l L. at 643 n. 1 ("By contrast, the P e r m a n e n t Court of International Justice, though closely related to the League of Nations, was independent o f it."). T h e International Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction over crim in a l cases and collateral attacks o n convictions. See, e.g., Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention Arising fr o m the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libya v. U.K.), 1992 I.C.J. 3, 15 (1992); and Jeffrey J. Carlisle, E x t r a d itio n of Governments as a Municipal Law Remedy for State-Sponsored Kidnapping, 81 Cal. L. Rev. 1 5 4 1 , 1547-1572 & n. 171 (Decem b e r 1993). The jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice is lim ite d to disputes between nations. See United States v. Maine, 475 U.S. 89, 99 (1986), citing the Fisheries Case ( U n ite d Kingdom v. Norway), 1951 I.C . J . 116 (1951). See also Daphne Barak-Erez, Israel: The Security B a r r ie r -- B e t w e e n International Law, Constitutional Law, and Domestic Judicial Review, 4 Int'l J. Const. L. 540 ( J u ly 2006)(discussing various court opinions, including ICJ advisory opinion, on construction of Israel's s e c u r i ty barrier in Judea and Sam a r i a ) . But see Firew Kebede Tiba, W h a t Caused the Multiplicity of In te r n a tio n a l Courts and Tribunals, Gonz. J. Int'l L. 202 (2006-2007). 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 com p la in ts for relief and subm it findings and recom m e n d a tio n s to the District C o u rt.
5

3

6:07-cv-00903-RBH

Date Filed 04/20/2007

Entry Number 12

Page 4 of 7

sc ree ning of any pro se filing);6 Loe v. Armistead, 582 F.2d 1291 (4th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, Moffitt v. Loe, 446 U.S. 928 (1980); and Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, Leeke v. Gordon, 439 U.S. 970 (1978). The plaintiff is a pro se litigant, and thus his plea d ing s are accorded liberal construction. See 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. F ine 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 fac ts which set forth a claim currently cognizable in a federal district court. Weller v.

Department of Social Services, 901 F.2d 387, 1990 U.S.App. LEXIS® 6120 (4th Cir. 1990). T he Patrick B. Harris Psychiatric Hospital is a group of buildings or a facility. Inanim ate objects ) such as buildings, facilities, and grounds ) do not act under color of state law. Hence, the Patrick B. Harris Psychiatric Hospital is not a "person" subject to suit under 4 2 U.S.C. § 1983. See Allison v. California Adult Authority, 419 F.2d 822, 823 (9th Cir. 1969)(California Adult Authority and San Quentin Prison not "person[s]" subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983); Preval v. Reno, 57 F.Supp.2d 307, 310, 1999 U.S.Dist. LEXIS® 9857 (E.D .Va. 1999)("[T]he Piedmont Regional Jail is not a `person,' and therefore not amenable to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983."); and Brooks v. Pembroke City Jail, 722 F. Supp. 1294, 1301, 1989 U.S.Dist. LEXIS® 12440 (E.D.N.C. 1989)("Claims under § 1983 are directed at `persons'

Boyce has been held by som e authorities to have been abrogated in part, on other grounds, by Neitzke v . W illia m s , 490 U.S. 319 (1989)(insofar as Neitzke establishes that a com p l a in t that fails to state a claim , u n d e r Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), does not by definition m e r i t sua sponte dism is s a l under 28 U .S .C . § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) [form e r ly 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)], as "frivolous").

6

4

6:07-cv-00903-RBH

Date Filed 04/20/2007

Entry Number 12

Page 5 of 7

and the jail is not a person amenable to suit."). Cf. Wright v. El Paso County Jail, 642 F.2d 134, 136 n. 3 (5th Cir. 1981). Although the plaintiff has not named the South Carolina Department of Mental Health as a defendant, it can be judicially noticed that the Patrick B. Harris Psychiatric Hospital is operated by the South Carolina Department of Mental Health. The South Carolina

D epartm ent of Mental Health has Eleventh Amendment immunity. See, e.g., Federal Maritime C om mission v. South Carolina State Ports Authority, 535 U.S. 743, 152 L.Ed.2d 962, 122 S.Ct. 1864, 2002 U.S. LEXIS® 3794 (2002); Board of Trustees of University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 148 L.Ed.2d 866, 121 S.Ct. 955, 2001 U.S. LEXIS® 1700 (2001); Kimel v. F lorida Board of Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 145 L.Ed.2d 522, 120 S.Ct. 631, 2000 U.S. LEXIS® 498 (2000)(Congress exceeded its authority in making Age Discrimination in Employment Act [AD E A ] applicable to States); Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 4601, 144 L.Ed.2d 636, 119 S.Ct. 2240, 1999 U.S. LEXIS® 4374 (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). It is well settled that prisons are not required to have a grievance procedure or adjustm ent committees. See Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 74, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS® 32286 (4th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1022, 131 L.E.2d 227, 115 S.Ct. 1371, 1995 U.S. LEXIS® 2106 (1995). Since the plaintiff is a prisoner held in the Patrick B. Harris Psychiatric Hospital for a court-ordered psychiatric examination, he is not entitled to an decision from an adjustment com m ittee before the use of "fetters."

5

6:07-cv-00903-RBH

Date Filed 04/20/2007

Entry Number 12

Page 6 of 7

R e c o m m e n d a tio n
According ly, it is recommended that the District Court dismiss the aboveca ption ed case without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. See Denton v. Hernandez, supra; Neitzke v. Williams, supra; Haines v. Kerner, supra; Brown v. Briscoe, 998 F.2d 201, 202-204 & n. *, 1993 U.S.App. LEXIS® 17715 (4th Cir. 1993), replacing unpublished opinion originally tabled at 993 F.2d 1535 (4th Cir. 1993); Boyce v. Alizaduh, supra; Todd v. Baskerville, supra, 712 F.2d at 74; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)[essentially a redesignation of "old" 1915(d)]; and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A[as soon as possible after docketing, district courts should review prisoner cases to determine whether they are subject to summary dism issal]. The plaintiff's attention is directed to the Notice on the next page.

April 20, 2007 G reenville, South Carolina

s/William M. Catoe United States Magistrate Judge

6

6:07-cv-00903-RBH

Date Filed 04/20/2007

Entry Number 12

Page 7 of 7

Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation The plaintiff is advised that he 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 10768 Greenville, South Carolina 29603
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in the 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.), cert. denied, Schronce v. United States, 467 U.S. 1208 (1984); and Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985).

7