Perkins v. Tucker et al
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopts #21 Report and incorporates it herein by reference. Therefore, Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff's Motion for Recusal of the Magistrate (ECF No. 4)and Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 12) are hereby DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 10/4/2017. (gpre, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
and on behalf of Yoshiko Marchbanks
c/o Yamashiro House LLC (dissolved),
Glenda Tucker, Gray Court Magistrate,
Andrew Turner, Laurens County Sheriff’s Office, )
C/A No. 6:17-cv-01303-TMC
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling.
Before the court is the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”) (ECF
No. 21), recommending that the court dismiss the Complaint (ECF No. 1) without
prejudice and that the court deny Plaintiff’s pending Motion for Recusal of the Magistrate
(ECF No. 4) and Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 12) and terminate those
motions as moot. Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report. (ECF
No. 21 at 9). Plaintiff filed objections to the Report. (ECF No. 24).
The recommendations set forth in the Report have no presumptive weight, and
this court remains responsible for making a final determination in this matter. See
Matthews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de
novo determination of those portions of a magistrate judge’s report to which a specific
objection is made, and the court may accept, reject, modify, in whole or in part, the
recommendation of the magistrate judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, the court need not conduct a de novo review when a party
makes only “general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific
error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson,
687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). In the absence of a timely filed, specific objection, the
magistrate judge’s conclusions are reviewed only for clear error. See Diamond v.
Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
The magistrate judge summarized the facts of this action in her Report. (ECF No.
21). Briefly stated, Plaintiff was arrested for breach of peace and detained for several
days following what Plaintiff asserts was a lawful attempt at a citizen’s arrest of a
“junkyard gang.” (ECF No. 1 at 8, 10). Plaintiff asserts that the “junkyard gang” was
playing loud music and burning an animal torso, so he attempted to arrest them. Id. at 10.
However, the gang refused to comply and chased an unarmed Plaintiff into the woods. Id.
at 5. Plaintiff alleges that he was arrested by Defendant Andrew Turner pursuant to a
false arrest warrant issued by Magistrate Judge Glenda Tucker. Id. at 9. Plaintiff believes
this may be in retaliation for him refusing to sell his land to Magistrate Judge Tucker in
On May 25, 2017, Plaintiff filed a pleading construed as a “Motion for Recusal”
of Magistrate Judge Tucker (though Plaintiff contends it is a “motion to rescue”). (ECF
No. 4). Plaintiff asked that Judge Tucker not handle his state charge. Id. Additionally,
Plaintiff sought to remove his state charge to the federal courts. Id. On June 8, 2017,
Plaintiff supplemented that motion and requested a “notice of appeal” from the Gray
Court Magistrate decision. Id.
Once more, Plaintiff attempted to invoke federal
jurisdiction over the state criminal charge against him. Id.
On June 16, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 12).
He alleges false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution. (ECF No. 12-1).
He alleges that he has been persecuted against by the white “good ol’ boys” in this
system and requests that his damages be awarded as a matter of law. Id. at 7. Plaintiff
asks for damages for loss of consortium and emotional distress. Id.
$666,666.66 in damages and asks that these be trebled to account for punitive damages.
Id. In his objections to the magistrate judge’s Report, Plaintiff purports to defect from the
United States, and he charges the United States with helping him gain Japanese
citizenship and paying for him to start a life there. (ECF No. 24 at 2). Before the court is
the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff’s motion for recusal and
motion for summary judgment. (ECF 21).
Rather than containing specific objections to the magistrate judge’s findings,
Plaintiff’s objections largely restate his claims and reiterate his distrust of the legal
system.1 However, the court is able to glean that the Plaintiff does specifically object to
the finding in the Report that he does not have standing to sue on behalf of Yoshiko
In relation to the Plaintiff’s objections, the court must address the profanity and abusive language
contained therein. While Plaintiff may be frustrated, this is no excuse for the language Plaintiff used, and
the court will not tolerate it. “Due to the very nature of the court as an institution, it must and does have the
inherent power to impose order, respect, decorum, silence, and compliance with lawful mandates.” United
States v. Shaffer Equip. Co., 11 F.3d 450, 461 (4th Cir. 1993). Although this court recognizes the leniency
typically afforded to pro se parties, this court considers the profanity used by Plaintiff to be harassment and
sanctionable under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In order for the court to impose
sanctions sua sponte under Rule 11, a party must be given notice that sanctions are being considered. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 11(c)(1)(B). Accordingly, Plaintiff is hereby advised that Rule 11 sanctions will be considered in
the future any time that he submits correspondence or pleadings containing offensive, abusive, or profane
Marchbanks or his dissolved company, Yamashiro House LLC. Upon review, this court
determines that Plaintiff does not have standing to sue on behalf of either his dissolved
company or Yoshiko Marchbanks.
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit as a pro se plaintiff in forma pauperis, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff states that he can sue on behalf Yamashiro House LLC. Plaintiff
also asserts that he can sue for Yoshiko Marchbanks because she is “common law
married to the dissolved company.” These arguments fail for multiple reasons. Although
an individual has the right to litigate his own claims in federal court, the right to litigate
for oneself does not extend to others. See Myers v. Loudoun Co. Pub. Sch., 418 F.3d 395,
400 (4th Cir. 2005); see also Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975)
(a pro se petitioner unassisted by counsel cannot be an advocate for others in a class
action). Therefore, Plaintiff’s right to litigate for himself does not extend to being able to
litigate for Ms. Marchbanks or for Yamashiro House LLC.
Additionally, a pro se plaintiff cannot represent a company in a civil action. See
e.g. United States v. Hagerman, 545 F.3d 579, 581–82 (7th Cir. 2008). Thus, Plaintiff
has no standing to represent Yamashiro House LLC. It is well established that a pro se
litigant cannot represent a corporation in a civil action. See Rowland v. California Men’s
Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 202 (1993) (“A corporation may appear in the federal courts only
through licensed counsel.”). Plaintiff contends that his company is not a “corporation”
and that, therefore, he is not precluded from representing Yamashiro House LLC in this
case. However, courts outside our jurisdiction have held that limited liability companies,
like Yamashiro House LLC, are precluded from proceeding pro se as well. See e.g.
Hagerman, 545 F.3d at 581–82. Furthermore, Plaintiff has filed this case in forma
pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which has allowed Plaintiff to file this action
without prepaying fees and costs to the court. (ECF Nos. 2, 9). The Supreme Court has
held that only natural citizens may take advantage of proceeding in forma pauperis.
Rowland, 506 U.S. at 196. Therefore, artificial entities, such as limited liability
companies, are precluded from filing cases pursuant to § 1915 and from benefitting from
its provisions. See id. Thus, even if Plaintiff had standing to sue on behalf of Yamashiro
House LLC, he could not do so in forma pauperis.
As for the Plaintiffs remaining objections, this court finds that the objections were
restatements of his initial claims and that the magistrate has sufficiently disposed of those
claims in her Report. (ECF No. 21).
After a thorough review of the Report and of the record in accordance with the
standard set forth above, the court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein by
reference. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED without
prejudice. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Recusal of the Magistrate (ECF No. 4)
and Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 12) are hereby DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
October 4, 2017
Anderson, South Carolina
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3
and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
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?