Source: http://sc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190129_0000206.DSC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-12-14 13:16:49
Document Index: 463168048

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

Neil McGowan; Melinda Haney; Jennifer Lawson, Defendants.
The plaintiff, David Browning, a self-represented state pretrial detainee, brings this civil rights action.[1] Plaintiff files this Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and § 1915A. 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.). By order dated December 5, 2018, the court identified deficiencies in Plaintiff's Complaint that will subject the case to summary dismissal. (ECF No. 12.) In response, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 14.) However, having reviewed the Amended Complaint in accordance with applicable law, the court finds this action is still subject to summary dismissal if Plaintiff does not amend the Amended Complaint to cure the deficiencies identified herein.
In the original complaint Plaintiff, an inmate at the Union County Detention Center, alleged that his jail cell was infested with bugs that bit him in his sleep. (Compl., ECF No. 1 at 6.) He alleged that he was bitten in the face by bugs on the night of April 29, 2018, causing an infection. (Id. at 6, 13.) He alleged the infection went untreated, and eventually led to a total loss of hearing and migraines. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff indicated that he brought these claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for damages, based on the defendants' purported “medical negligence” and failure to ensure safe living conditions. (Id. at 14.)
In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff again alleges bugs bit him while he was sleeping, causing him injury. (Am. Compl., ECF No. 14 at 5-6.) He claims he told Officer Littleton about the bite and, while Littleton said Plaintiff should go to the hospital, the “officer in charge” said no. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff does not identify the officer in charge. Plaintiff also alleges that he has received antibiotics from a nurse but they are not helping. (Id.) Plaintiff claims he needs a different form of medical treatment. (Id.) Plaintiff expressly raises claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for pain and suffering, cruel and unusual punishment, poor living conditions, and over-crowding.[2] (Id. at 4.)
The court finds Plaintiff's case is still subject to summary dismissal for failure to state a claim if he does not amend the Amended Complaint, for the same reasons the court found the original complaint was deficient. 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).
In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff fails to allege any facts about the named defendants that would show that they had any involvement in the purported unsafe living conditions and lack of medical care that Plaintiff. 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).
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Consequently, the Amended Complaint is subject to summary dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. &sect; 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and &sect; 1915A(b)(1) 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 a second amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) that corrects the deficiencies identified above.[3] In a contemporaneously issued order, the court has again provided Plaintiff with instructions to bring this case into proper form for initial review and the issuance and service of process. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint that corrects those deficiencies, this action will be recommended for summary dismissal with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. &sect; 1915 and &sect; 1915A. See Workman v. Morrison Healthcare, 724 Fed.Appx. 280, 281 (4th Cir. 2018) (in a case where the district court had already afforded the plaintiff an opportunity to amend, directing the district court on remand to “in its discretion, ...