IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Ricardo Cabbagestalk, ) C/A No.: 3:23-4582-SAL-SVH ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) ORDER AND NOTICE Sumter County Sheriff’s ) Department, ) ) Defendant. ) )
Ricardo Cabbagestalk (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, is detained in the Sumter Lee County Detention Center. He filed this letter, which has been construed as a complaint alleging a violation of his constitutional rights by Sumter County Sheriff’s Department (“SCSD”). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.), the undersigned is authorized to review such complaints for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the district judge. I. Factual and Procedural Background Plaintiff filed a letter that has been liberally construed as a complaint. Plaintiff alleges he has been a victim of police brutality on numerous occasions. [ECF No. 1]. Plaintiff claims he was offered a plea on criminal charges for which he has never been served with a warrant. . He alleges he has been assaulted and has “had charges that don’t pertain to my case in which [he is] not guilty of, stacked against [him].” .
II. Discussion A. Standard of Review Plaintiff filed his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which permits an indigent litigant to commence an action in federal court without prepaying
the administrative costs of proceeding with the lawsuit. To protect against possible abuses of this privilege, the statute allows a district court to dismiss a case upon a finding that the action fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted or is frivolous or malicious. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii). A
finding of frivolity can be made where the complaint lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. , 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). A claim based on a meritless legal theory may be dismissed sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). , 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).
Pro se complaints are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. , 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). A federal court is charged with liberally construing a complaint filed by a pro se litigant to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case.
, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). In evaluating a pro se complaint, the plaintiff’s allegations are assumed to be true. ., 529 F.2d 70, 74 (2d Cir. 1975). The mandated liberal construction afforded to pro se pleadings means that if the court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, it should do so. Nevertheless, the
requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts that set forth a claim currently cognizable in a federal district court. ., 901 F.2d 387, 390–91 (4th Cir. 1990).
B. Analysis 1. Insufficient Allegations Plaintiff has failed to meet the minimal standards for filing a complaint. A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 3. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), a pleading that states a claim for relief must contain: (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.
Plaintiff’s complaint does not meet all of the three requirements under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). As to the second requirement, Plaintiff has not provided a short, plain statement, and does not provide any factual allegations to support his claims. Similarly, Plaintiff provides no request for relief. As such, Plaintiff fails to meet the minimal standard for filing a complaint. 2. SCSD is Not a Person To state a plausible claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, an aggrieved
party must sufficiently allege that he was injured by “the deprivation of any [of his or her] rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the [United States] Constitution and laws” by a “person” acting “under color of state law.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller,
§ 1230 (3d ed. 2014). Only “persons” may act under color of state law; therefore, a defendant in a § 1983 action must qualify as a “person.” In this case, SCSD as a defendant, but it is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983. A sheriff’s department, detention center, or task force is a
group of officers or buildings that is not considered a legal entity subject to suit , 27 F. App’x 173, 178 (4th Cir. 2001) (finding that the medical department of a prison is not a person pursuant to § 1983); , 750 F. Supp. 1131 (S.D. Fla. 1990) (dismissing
city police department as improper defendant in § 1983 action because not “person” under the statute); , 578 F. Supp. 1368, 1370 (N.D. Ga. 1984) (dismissing police department as party defendant because it was merely a vehicle through which city government fulfills policing
functions). Accordingly, SCSD is subject to summary dismissal. 3. Abstention Plaintiff’s complaint relates to state criminal charges currently pending
against him, and his right to proceed pro se. In , 401 U.S. 37 (1971), the Supreme Court held a federal court should not equitably interfere with state criminal proceedings “except in the most narrow and extraordinary of circumstances.” , 75 F.3d 881, 903 (4th Cir. 1996). The
Court noted courts of equity should not act unless the moving party has no adequate remedy at law and will suffer irreparable injury if denied equitable relief. , 401 U.S. at 43–44 (citation omitted). From and its progeny, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has culled the
following test to determine when abstention is appropriate: “(1) there are ongoing state judicial proceedings; (2) the proceedings implicate important state interests; and (3) there is an adequate opportunity to raise federal claims in the state proceedings.”
, 38 F.3d 1392, 1396 (4th Cir. 1994) (citing , 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982)). Plaintiff states he is facing criminal charges, which satisfies the first part of the test. The second part of the test is met because the Supreme Court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Ricardo Cabbagestalk, ) C/A No.: 3:23-4582-SAL-SVH ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) ORDER AND NOTICE Sumter County Sheriff’s ) Department, ) ) Defendant. ) )
Ricardo Cabbagestalk (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, is detained in the Sumter Lee County Detention Center. He filed this letter, which has been construed as a complaint alleging a violation of his constitutional rights by Sumter County Sheriff’s Department (“SCSD”). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.), the undersigned is authorized to review such complaints for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the district judge. I. Factual and Procedural Background Plaintiff filed a letter that has been liberally construed as a complaint. Plaintiff alleges he has been a victim of police brutality on numerous occasions. [ECF No. 1]. Plaintiff claims he was offered a plea on criminal charges for which he has never been served with a warrant. . He alleges he has been assaulted and has “had charges that don’t pertain to my case in which [he is] not guilty of, stacked against [him].” .
II. Discussion A. Standard of Review Plaintiff filed his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which permits an indigent litigant to commence an action in federal court without prepaying
the administrative costs of proceeding with the lawsuit. To protect against possible abuses of this privilege, the statute allows a district court to dismiss a case upon a finding that the action fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted or is frivolous or malicious. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii). A
finding of frivolity can be made where the complaint lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. , 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). A claim based on a meritless legal theory may be dismissed sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). , 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).
Pro se complaints are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. , 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). A federal court is charged with liberally construing a complaint filed by a pro se litigant to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case.
, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). In evaluating a pro se complaint, the plaintiff’s allegations are assumed to be true. ., 529 F.2d 70, 74 (2d Cir. 1975). The mandated liberal construction afforded to pro se pleadings means that if the court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, it should do so. Nevertheless, the
requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts that set forth a claim currently cognizable in a federal district court. ., 901 F.2d 387, 390–91 (4th Cir. 1990).
B. Analysis 1. Insufficient Allegations Plaintiff has failed to meet the minimal standards for filing a complaint. A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 3. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), a pleading that states a claim for relief must contain: (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.
Plaintiff’s complaint does not meet all of the three requirements under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). As to the second requirement, Plaintiff has not provided a short, plain statement, and does not provide any factual allegations to support his claims. Similarly, Plaintiff provides no request for relief. As such, Plaintiff fails to meet the minimal standard for filing a complaint. 2. SCSD is Not a Person To state a plausible claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, an aggrieved
party must sufficiently allege that he was injured by “the deprivation of any [of his or her] rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the [United States] Constitution and laws” by a “person” acting “under color of state law.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller,
§ 1230 (3d ed. 2014). Only “persons” may act under color of state law; therefore, a defendant in a § 1983 action must qualify as a “person.” In this case, SCSD as a defendant, but it is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983. A sheriff’s department, detention center, or task force is a
group of officers or buildings that is not considered a legal entity subject to suit , 27 F. App’x 173, 178 (4th Cir. 2001) (finding that the medical department of a prison is not a person pursuant to § 1983); , 750 F. Supp. 1131 (S.D. Fla. 1990) (dismissing
city police department as improper defendant in § 1983 action because not “person” under the statute); , 578 F. Supp. 1368, 1370 (N.D. Ga. 1984) (dismissing police department as party defendant because it was merely a vehicle through which city government fulfills policing
functions). Accordingly, SCSD is subject to summary dismissal. 3. Abstention Plaintiff’s complaint relates to state criminal charges currently pending
against him, and his right to proceed pro se. In , 401 U.S. 37 (1971), the Supreme Court held a federal court should not equitably interfere with state criminal proceedings “except in the most narrow and extraordinary of circumstances.” , 75 F.3d 881, 903 (4th Cir. 1996). The
Court noted courts of equity should not act unless the moving party has no adequate remedy at law and will suffer irreparable injury if denied equitable relief. , 401 U.S. at 43–44 (citation omitted). From and its progeny, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has culled the
following test to determine when abstention is appropriate: “(1) there are ongoing state judicial proceedings; (2) the proceedings implicate important state interests; and (3) there is an adequate opportunity to raise federal claims in the state proceedings.”
, 38 F.3d 1392, 1396 (4th Cir. 1994) (citing , 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982)). Plaintiff states he is facing criminal charges, which satisfies the first part of the test. The second part of the test is met because the Supreme Court
has noted “the States’ interest in administering their criminal justice systems free from federal interference is one of the most powerful of the considerations that should influence a court considering equitable types of relief.” , 479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986). The Fourth Circuit has addressed the third criterion in noting “‘that ordinarily a pending state prosecution provides the
accused a fair and sufficient opportunity for vindication of federal constitutional rights.’” , 75 F.3d at 904 (quoting , 421 U.S. 117, 124 (1975)). Plaintiff can pursue his claims related to the legality of his detention during the disposition of his criminal charges. Accordingly, to the
extent Plaintiff seeks interference in his state criminal case, the complaint is subject to summary dismissal. , 401 U.S. at 43–44. NOTICE CONCERNING AMENDMENT Plaintiff may attempt to correct the defects in his complaint by filing an
amended complaint by October 10, 2023, along with any appropriate service documents. Plaintiff is reminded an amended complaint replaces the original complaint and should be complete in itself. , 238 F.3d 567, 572 (4th Cir. 2001) (“As a general rule, an amended pleading
ordinarily supersedes the original and renders it of no legal effect.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, the undersigned will conduct screening of the amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint or fails to
cure the deficiencies identified above, the undersigned will recommend the district judge dismiss the complaint without leave for further amendment. IT IS SO ORDERED. □□ feadger” September 19, 2023 Shiva V. Hodges Columbia, South Carolina United States Magistrate Judge