Source: http://sc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190117_0000148.DSC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-05-24 22:56:57
Document Index: 660622631

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1915', '§ 636', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983']

FindACase™ | Harris v. Rock Hill Municipal Court
Harris v. Rock Hill Municipal Court
Rock Hill Municipal Court; Britney May; Andres Maldonado; Christopher Price; Cameron Kirby; Sean Sercu; William Watson; Brandon Avidon; Antoine Logan; Jane Molda; Peter Lenzi; Paula Brown, Defendants.
The plaintiff, Brandy Vernon Harris, proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action against the defendants. The Complaint has been filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This matter is before the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). Having reviewed the Complaint in accordance with applicable law, the court finds this action is subject to summary dismissal if Plaintiff does not amend the Complaint to cure the deficiencies identified herein.
Plaintiff claims the defendants acted under color of law and deprived her of a constitutional right, apparently on January 9, 2017. The defendants are identified as either “officers of South Carolina, ” “Judges Government Official of South Carolina, ” or a prosecutor. Plaintiff seeks damages based on “deliberate indifference.” As to some of the defendants, Plaintiff seeks to state a “constitutional Bivens action.” The Complaint provides no other details about the claims being raised on the named defendants.
In order to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the plaintiff must do more than make mere conclusory statements. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Rather, the complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim that is plausible on its face. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. The reviewing court need only accept as true the complaint's factual allegations, not its legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555
The court concludes that this action is subject to summary dismissal because Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights, and as to some defendants, appears to seek relief pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unkown Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). In Bivens, the United States Supreme Court established a remedy for plaintiffs alleging certain constitutional violations by federal officials to obtain monetary damages in suits against federal officials in their individual capacities. Id. But here, Plaintiff does not appear to name a federal official.
To the extent Plaintiff seeks to raise a claim that a state or local government official violated her constitutional rights, such a claim may be more properly brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A legal action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 allows “a party who has been deprived of a federal right under the color of state law to seek relief.” City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., 526 U.S. 687, 707 (1999). To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
But here, Plaintiff fails to allege any facts about the named defendants that would show that they had any involvement in a violation of Plaintiff's right. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676 (providing that a plaintiff in a § 1983 action must plead that the defendant, through his own individual actions, violated the Constitution); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 850 (4th Cir. 1985) (“In order for an individual to be liable under § 1983, it must be ‘affirmatively shown that the official charged acted personally in the deprivation of the plaintiff's rights. The doctrine of respondeat superior has no application under this section.' ”) (quoting Vinnedge v. Gibbs, 550 F.2d 926, 928 (4th Cir. 1977)). Because Plaintiff does not explain how the named defendants were involved in the purported violation of Plaintiff's rights, Plaintiff fails to meet the federal pleading standards. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 (requiring that a pleading contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”); Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (stating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, but it requires more than a plain accusation that the defendant unlawfully harmed the plaintiff, devoid of factual support).[1]
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Consequently, Plaintiff&#39;s Complaint is subject to summary dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. &sect; 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff is hereby granted twenty-one (21) days from the date this order is entered (plus three days for mail time) to file an amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) that corrects the deficiencies identified above.[2] In a contemporaneously issued order, the court has also provided Plaintiff with instructions to bring this case into proper form for initial review and the issuance and service of process. If ...