IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Jaelan Jackson, #102238, ) C/A No.: 1:19-2382-DCN-SVH ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ORDER AND NOTICE ) C.O. Williams, Sheriff Anthony ) Dennis, Capt. Blanding, ) ) Defendants. ) )
Jaelan Jackson (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of his civil rights against defendants Officer Williams (“Officer”), Sheriff Anthony Dennis (“Sheriff”), and Captain Blanding (“Captain”) (collectively “Defendants”). Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (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 is a pretrial detainee at the Sumter-Lee Regional Detention Center. [ECF No. 1 at 2]. He alleges on or about May 20, 2019, after 11:00 PM, Officer entered his cell and fondled his genitals. at 4, 5, 7. Plaintiff claims inmates in a nearby cell witnessed Officer entering his cell and made comments. at 5. He states he reported the incident to another officer, who advised him to file a grievance. at 6. He maintains he did not file a grievance, but alleges Officer was terminated for sexually assaulting other
inmates. at 6. He asserts causes of action for cruel and unusual punishment and requests damages of $2.1 million. at 4, 8. 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 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the court must liberally construe a pro se complaint, the United States Supreme Court has made it clear a plaintiff must do more than make conclusory statements to state a claim. , 556 U.S. 662,
677‒78 (2009); , 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, and the reviewing court need only accept as true the complaint’s factual allegations, not its legal conclusions.
, 556 U.S. at 678‒79. To state a plausible claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,1 an aggrieved party must sufficiently allege 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).
1. Eleventh Amendment Immunity The Eleventh Amendment provides, “[t]he Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or
by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” U.S. Const. amend. XI. The United States Supreme Court has long held the Eleventh Amendment also precludes suits against a state by one of its own citizens. , 415 U.S. 651, 662-63 (1974). This immunity extends not only to suits
against a state per se, but also to suits against agents and instrumentalities of the state. , 242 F.3d 219, 222 (4th Cir. 2001).
1 Plaintiff’s complaint is properly before this court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 is the procedural mechanism through which Congress provided a private civil cause of action based on allegations of federal constitutional violations by persons acting under color of state law. The purpose of § 1983 is to deter state actors from using badge of their authority to deprive individuals of their federally guaranteed rights and to provide relief to victims if such deterrence fails. Because Defendants are employees of a South Carolina county, when acting in their official capacities, they are considered an arm of the state and not a
“person” within the meaning § 1983. , No. 3:12-1509-JFA-SVH, 2013 WL 2423120, at *4 (D.S.C. June 4, 2013) (citing S.C. Code Ann. § 4-1-10 and applying the Eleventh Amendment to a county as “a political subdivision of the State”); , C/A No. 4:02-3473-
RBH, 2006 WL 361375, at *5–6 (D.S.C. Feb. 15, 2006) (finding Charleston County Detention Center entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity as an arm of the state); , 417 S.E.2d 523, 525 (S.C. 1992) (employees of a county Sheriff are state officials);
, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989) (“[N]either a state nor its officials acting in their official capacities are ‘persons’ under § 1983.”).
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
Jaelan Jackson, #102238, ) C/A No.: 1:19-2382-DCN-SVH ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ORDER AND NOTICE ) C.O. Williams, Sheriff Anthony ) Dennis, Capt. Blanding, ) ) Defendants. ) )
Jaelan Jackson (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of his civil rights against defendants Officer Williams (“Officer”), Sheriff Anthony Dennis (“Sheriff”), and Captain Blanding (“Captain”) (collectively “Defendants”). Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (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 is a pretrial detainee at the Sumter-Lee Regional Detention Center. [ECF No. 1 at 2]. He alleges on or about May 20, 2019, after 11:00 PM, Officer entered his cell and fondled his genitals. at 4, 5, 7. Plaintiff claims inmates in a nearby cell witnessed Officer entering his cell and made comments. at 5. He states he reported the incident to another officer, who advised him to file a grievance. at 6. He maintains he did not file a grievance, but alleges Officer was terminated for sexually assaulting other
inmates. at 6. He asserts causes of action for cruel and unusual punishment and requests damages of $2.1 million. at 4, 8. 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 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the court must liberally construe a pro se complaint, the United States Supreme Court has made it clear a plaintiff must do more than make conclusory statements to state a claim. , 556 U.S. 662,
677‒78 (2009); , 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, and the reviewing court need only accept as true the complaint’s factual allegations, not its legal conclusions.
, 556 U.S. at 678‒79. To state a plausible claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,1 an aggrieved party must sufficiently allege 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).
1. Eleventh Amendment Immunity The Eleventh Amendment provides, “[t]he Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or
by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” U.S. Const. amend. XI. The United States Supreme Court has long held the Eleventh Amendment also precludes suits against a state by one of its own citizens. , 415 U.S. 651, 662-63 (1974). This immunity extends not only to suits
against a state per se, but also to suits against agents and instrumentalities of the state. , 242 F.3d 219, 222 (4th Cir. 2001).
1 Plaintiff’s complaint is properly before this court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 is the procedural mechanism through which Congress provided a private civil cause of action based on allegations of federal constitutional violations by persons acting under color of state law. The purpose of § 1983 is to deter state actors from using badge of their authority to deprive individuals of their federally guaranteed rights and to provide relief to victims if such deterrence fails. Because Defendants are employees of a South Carolina county, when acting in their official capacities, they are considered an arm of the state and not a
“person” within the meaning § 1983. , No. 3:12-1509-JFA-SVH, 2013 WL 2423120, at *4 (D.S.C. June 4, 2013) (citing S.C. Code Ann. § 4-1-10 and applying the Eleventh Amendment to a county as “a political subdivision of the State”); , C/A No. 4:02-3473-
RBH, 2006 WL 361375, at *5–6 (D.S.C. Feb. 15, 2006) (finding Charleston County Detention Center entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity as an arm of the state); , 417 S.E.2d 523, 525 (S.C. 1992) (employees of a county Sheriff are state officials);
, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989) (“[N]either a state nor its officials acting in their official capacities are ‘persons’ under § 1983.”). A state cannot, without its consent, be sued in a district court of the United States by one of its own citizens upon the claim that the case is one arising under the Constitution and
laws of the United States. , 415 U.S. at 663. The State of South Carolina has not consented to be sued in this case. S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78- 20(e). Thus, as arms of the state, Defendants, in their official capacities, would be immune from a federal lawsuit for damages under the Eleventh
Amendment. Accordingly, the complaint is subject to summary dismissal as to Defendants in their official capacities. 2. Failure to Allege Specific Facts Against Defendants
To assert a viable § 1983 claim against a particular public official, Plaintiff must allege a causal connection or affirmative link between the conduct of which he complains and the official sued. , 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009) (providing that a plaintiff in a § 1983 action must plead that the defendant, through his own individual actions, violated the
Constitution); , 423 U.S. 362, 371-72 (1976) (holding a § 1983 plaintiff must show that he suffered a specific injury as a result of specific conduct of a defendant, and an affirmative link between the injury and that conduct); , 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 , 550 F.2d 926, 928 (4th Cir. 1977)); , 550
F.2d at 928 (finding 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). “Where a complaint alleges no specific act or conduct on the part of the
defendant and the complaint is silent as to the defendant except for his name appearing in the caption, the claimant is properly dismissed, even under the liberal construction to be given pro se complaints.” , 497 F.3d 1206, 1207 (7th Cir. 1974). Plaintiff names Sheriff and Captain in the caption and lists them as parties, but he does not allege any facts suggesting their
involvement in the alleged constitutional violation. Therefore, Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to summary dismissal as to Sheriff and Captain. NOTICE CONCERNING AMENDMENT Plaintiff may attempt to correct the defects in his complaint by filing an
amended complaint by September 20, 2019, 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 to the district court that the claims as to Sheriff and Captain be dismissed without leave for further amendment. IT IS SO ORDERED.
August 30, 2019 Shiva V. Hodges Columbia, South Carolina United States Magistrate Judge