Patterson vs. Central Regional Jail
Filing
23
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE THE CIVIL ACTION: Adopting Report and Recommendations re 12 Report and Recommendations re 1 Complaint filed by C larke Douglas Patterson; Plaintiff's claim is Dismissed With Prejudice; Objections to R/R are Overruled; Pending motions are Denied as Moot; and Civil action is Dismissed and Stricken from docket of this Court. Clerk directed to enter judgment pursuant to FRCP. 58 Signed by Senior Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr on 1/12/15. (copy to Pltff. by cert. mail)(soa)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CLARKE DOUGLAS PATTERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 5:14CV125
(STAMP)
CENTRAL REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING THE REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE THE CIVIL ACTION
I.
Background
The pro se1 plaintiff filed his complaint with this Court,
alleging a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“§ 1983”).
No. 1.
Regional
ECF
The plaintiff is currently incarcerated in the Central
Jail
Authority,
located
in
Sutton,
West
Virginia.
Pursuant to his complaint, the plaintiff alleges the following: (1)
the defendant’s training manual prohibits inmates from talking to
each other when both are confined to the same “pod”; (2) the
inmates are required to sleep on the floor under toilets; (3) the
law library available to him and other inmates is inadequate, and
inmates are prohibited from discussing legal advice; (4) that
prison staff are searching through their belongings without prior
consent; (5) the prison guards are allegedly tampering with the
1
“Pro se” describes a person who represents himself in a court
proceeding without the assistance of a lawyer.
Black’s Law
Dictionary 1416 (10th ed. 2014).
plaintiff’s mail; and (6) the prison staff will not assist him in
filing a grievance form or permit him to print it.
Regarding his
damages, he claims that he has been unable to properly represent
himself, had his items stolen, and that the prison officials have
been “doing [him] wrong.”
ECF No. 1.
For relief, the plaintiff
requests that the alleged complaints be resolved and that he
receive damages for his alleged pain and suffering.
Along with
filing the complaint, the plaintiff also filed a motion for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis, which the magistrate judge partially
granted.
The plaintiff was required to only pay a portion of the
fee, which he did.
The
ECF Nos. 2 and 6, respectively.
magistrate
recommendation,
judge
recommending
later
entered
dismissal
with
a
report
prejudice.
and
The
magistrate judge found the complaint to be frivolous, noting in
particular that the plaintiff’s request for damages has little or
no chance of success.
In particular, the magistrate judge pointed
out that under a § 1983 action, a plaintiff must demonstrate that
a person acting under color of state law deprived him of the rights
guaranteed
by
the
Constitution
or
federal
laws,
Rendall-Baker v. Kohn, 547 U.S. 830, 838 (1982).
pursuant
to
Here, the
plaintiff names the Central Regional Jail Authority, rather than a
person, as a defendant.
Thus, that is an improper party in a
§ 1983 action because it is not a person.
Accordingly, the
magistrate judge found that the claim is meritless and thus
2
frivolous.
For those reasons, the magistrate judge recommended
that this civil action be dismissed with prejudice.
The plaintiff then filed objections to the magistrate judge’s
ECF No. 16.2
report and recommendation.
The plaintiff first
claims that he can neither print any grievances as proof of his
injury nor successfully attempt to rectify the situation. Thus, he
claims that only an order by the Court will give him the ability to
provide the necessary information.
Second, the plaintiff claims
that he has very little knowledge about the law and has limited
resources available to him.
He then requests the Court to amend
the caption of this civil action to provide the proper defendant.
Third, he requests copies of various legal sources, including the
Local Rules of Civil Procedure for this Court and the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, because the law library he uses allegedly
contains only state law books.
Finally, he notes that he only has
a third or fourth grade reading comprehension level, and thus
indicates a need for leniency when interpreting his complaint.
II.
Applicable Law
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court must conduct a de
novo review of any portion of the magistrate judge’s recommendation
to which an objection is timely made.
2
Because the plaintiff filed
It should be noted that the plaintiff filed additional
objections on December 1, 2014.
ECF No. 20.
However, those
objections are untimely. Nonetheless, the plaintiff in that filing
lists the same incidents that he provided in his complaint.
3
objections to the report and recommendation, the magistrate judge’s
recommendation will be reviewed de novo.
III.
Discussion
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), this Court is required to
dismiss all civil actions filed if at any time the Court determines
that the plaintiff’s action is one of the following: “(i) frivolous
or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted;” or (iii) if the action seeks recovery from an individual
that is immune. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). In determining whether
a complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted, a
court should not scrutinize the pleadings “with such technical
nicety that a meritorious claim should be defeated . . . .”
v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978).
Gordon
Thus, a pro se
complaint should not be summarily dismissed unless “it appears
‘beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in
support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.’”
Haines
v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521 (1972) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355
U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)).
Further, a complaint is frivolous when it
“lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”
Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
As
stated
earlier,
complaint pursuant § 1983.
the
plaintiff
filed
a
civil
rights
Section 1983 states the following:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory
or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be
subjected, any citizen of the United States or other
4
person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation
of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party
injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other
proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action
brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission
taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive
relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree
was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.
Thus, a § 1983 claims has two elements.
First, the plaintiff must
demonstrate that he or she was deprived of a right “secured by the
Constitution and the laws” of the United States.
Luga v. Edmonson
Oil Co., Inc., 457 U.S. 922, 930 (1982) (internal citations
omitted).
Second, the plaintiff must show that the individual who
deprived him or her of such rights acted under color of state law.
Id.; see Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (1970).
Further, the proper defendants in a § 1983 claim are “the persons
whose wrongful acts harmed the plaintiff.” Moore v. Pemberton, 110
F.3d 22, 23-24 (7th Cir. 1997).
The key aspect of the above
sentence is that the defendant must be a “person” for purposes of
a § 1983 claim.
Accordingly, defendants that are not “persons”
under § 1983 are unable to be sued under such an action.
Preval v.
Reno, 203 F.3d 821 (4th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (“Piedmont Regional
Jail is not a ‘person’ and is therefore not amenable to suit under
§ 1983.”); see Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58
(1989) (finding that “persons” under § 1983 does not include states
or their officials).
5
In this civil action, the plaintiff has not named a person as
a defendant.
Rather, the plaintiff filed suit against the Central
Regional Jail Authority.
Although a pro se litigant’s filings are
often held to a less stringent pleading standard, they still “bear
some responsibility for identifying their claims.” Davis v. Johns,
5:10CV2189, 2011 WL 2669270, at *3 (E.D.N.C. July 7, 2011) (citing
Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 714 (6th Cir. 2004)).
As
mentioned earlier, only “persons” are amenable to suit under
§ 1983.
At first glance, it appears the plaintiff’s claim cannot
proceed.
The plaintiff, however, maintains four objections. First, the
plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge’s recommendation that
this civil action be dismissed with prejudice.
Specifically, the
plaintiff alleges that he has limited access to the law library and
necessary paperwork.
Because of that, he alleges he has been
unable to address that recommendation.
Second, the plaintiff
claims that he maintains practically no legal knowledge and has
limited resources with which to respond.
he
needs
more
legal
books
in
order
Third, he believes that
to
litigate
his
claim.
Regarding the third objection, he has labeled it a motion for
additional legal textbooks.
Finally, the plaintiff requests that
this Court help him determine who the proper defendant is so that
his claim may continue, rather than be dismissed as the magistrate
judge recommended.
6
Concerning the first three objections, the plaintiff alleges
no facts so as to demonstrate that such conditions do exist.
Regarding
the
plaintiff’s
final
objection,
although
he
is
proceeding pro se, he must still “bear some responsibility for
identifying”
his
claims.
Id.
Indeed,
“[t]he
Court
is
not
authorized to become the advocate for the pro se litigant.” Grubbs
v. Salvation Army, 5:13CV4017, 2014 WL 6977943, at *4 (D. Kan. Dec.
9, 2014).
Accordingly, “the court will not construct arguments or
theories for the plaintiff in the absence of any discussion” of
such items.
Drake v. City of Fort Collins, 927 F.2d 1156 (10th
Cir. 1991).
Therefore, in this civil action, it is not this
Court’s position that it must advocate for the plaintiff who he
should file suit against. See, e.g., Barmes v. Nolan, 123 F. App’x
238 (7th Cir. 2005). As the magistrate judge correctly points out,
the plaintiff’s request for damages against the defendant, the
Central Regional Jail Authority, cannot succeed under a § 1983
claim.
Therefore,
the
plaintiff’s
claim
has
no
merit.
Accordingly, the claim should be considered frivolous and baseless.
IV.
Conclusion
For the reasons described above, the report and recommendation
by the magistrate judge is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED.
ECF No. 12.
The
plaintiff’s claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and his objections
are OVERRULED.
ECF No. 16.
hereby DENIED AS MOOT.
Accordingly, all pending motions are
Further, it is ORDERED that this civil
7
action be DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the active docket of this
Court.
Should the petitioner choose to appeal the judgment of this
Court to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
on the issues to which objection was made, he is ADVISED that he
must file a notice of appeal with the Clerk of this Court within 30
days after the date of the entry of the judgment order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit a copy of this memorandum
opinion and order to counsel of record herein. Pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 58, the Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment
on this matter.
DATED:
January 12, 2015
/s/ Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.
FREDERICK P. STAMP, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8
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?