Baccus v. Stirling

• Decision Date: 20 November 2015
• Docket Number: C/A No. 9:15-2670-DCN-BM
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
• Parties: John Roosevelt Baccus, a/k/a John Baccus, Plaintiff, v. Bryan P. Stirling, D. Eastridge, Others, Defendants.

John Roosevelt Baccus, a/k/a John Baccus, Plaintiff, v. Bryan P. Stirling, D. Eastridge, Others, Defendants.

C/A No. 9:15-2670-DCN-BM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

November 20, 2015

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The Plaintiff, John Roosevelt Baccus, a/k/a John Baccus, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is an inmate at the Lee Correctional Institution (LCI), part of the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC).

Under established local procedure in this judicial district, a careful review has been made of the pro se Complaint pursuant to the procedural provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and § 1915A, the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub.L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996), and in light of the following precedents; Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992), Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989), Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), Nasim v. Warden, Maryland House of Corr., 64 F.3d 951 (4th Cir. 1995), and Todd v. Baskerville, 712 F.2d 70 (4th Cir. 1983). Pro se complaints are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys, Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978), and a federal district court is charged with liberally construing a pro se complaint to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case. Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980); Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972); Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007)).

However, even when considered pursuant to this liberal standard, for the reasons set forth herein below this case is subject to summary dismissal. The requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts which set forth a claim cognizable in a federal district court. See Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679-679 (2009) [outlining pleading requirements under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure].

Discussion

In his rambling Complaint,¹ Plaintiff appears to complain about his custody classification; alleges he was discriminated against because he is African-American; and claims he was denied full and equal enjoyment and accommodation of his place of incarceration, due process, and access to the courts. He also appears to allege claims concerning his criminal cases (for which he is currently imprisoned) including false arrest, false imprisonment, withholding of exculpatory evidence, and inadequate representation. Additionally, Plaintiff makes statements concerning his detention from 1999 to 2003 at the Marion County Detention Center. Plaintiff requests monetary damages ("$000,000,000,000") and unspecified injunctive relief. Complaint, ECF No. 1 at 21. He also seeks "revocation of deferred conviction and sentences commitment orders immediately." ECF No. 1-1 at 15.

Plaintiff's claims fail to allege sufficient facts to state a constitutional or other federal claim, as his allegations are so generally incomprehensible and filled with what could only be considered by a reasonable person as unconnected, conclusory, and unsupported comments or "gibberish," that it is unclear what is to be made of them. See Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536- 537 (1974) [Noting that federal courts lack power to entertain claims that are "so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit"]; see also Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434 (2nd Cir. 1998); Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72 (4th Cir. 1994)[Affirming dismissal of plaintiff's suit as frivolous where allegations were conclusory and nonsensical on their face]. Plaintiff generally fails to include sufficiently clear factual allegations against any named Defendant of any personal responsibility or personal wrongdoing in connection with the alleged violations of any of Plaintiff's constitutionally protected rights. Thus, Plaintiff's Complaint is in violation of the directive in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) that pleadings shall contain "a short and plain statement" of the basis for the court's jurisdiction and of the basis for a plaintiff's claims against each defendant. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)[requiring, in order to avoid dismissal, "'a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,' in order to 'give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'"].

In order to proceed under § 1983, a plaintiff must affirmatively show that a defendant acted personally in the deprivation of his constitutional rights; Vinnedge v. Gibbs, 550 F.2d 926, 928 (4th Cir. 1977); and when a complaint contains no personal allegations against a defendant, that defendant is properly dismissed. See Karafiat v. O'Mally, 54 F. App'x 192, 195 (6th Cir. 2002); Curtis v. Ozmint, C/A No. 3:10-3053-CMC-JRM, 2011 WL 635302 at *4 n. 5 (D.S.C. Jan. 5, 2011), adopted by, 2011 WL 601259 (D.S.C. Feb. 11, 2011); Whaley v. Hatcher, No. 1:08CV 125-01-MU, 2008 WL 1806124, at *1 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 18, 2008). Additionally, a § 1983 claim for supervisory liability cannot rest on the doctrine of respondeat superior. Carter v. Morris, 164 F.3d 215, 221 (4th Cir. 1999). In the absence of substantive allegations of wrongdoing against a defendant, there is nothing from which the court can liberally construe a viable cause of action arising from a complaint, and it is well settled that federal courts performing their duties of construing pro se pleadings are not required to be "mind readers" or "advocates" for prisoners or pro se litigants. See Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985); Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d at 1151.

Plaintiff, a frequent filer of litigation in this Court, is serving concurrent sentences of life imprisonment without parole after being convicted of murder and burglary at a jury trial in Marion County General Sessions Court in May 2003. See ECF No. 1-2 at 18-19; Marion County Twelfth Judicial Circuit Public Index, http://publicindex.sccourts.org/Marion/PublicIndex/CaseDetails.aspx?County=33&CourtAgeney=33001&Casenum=F466007&CaseType=C; http://publicindex.sccourts.org/Marion/PublicIndex/CaseDetails.aspx?County=33&CourtAgency=33001&Casenum=F466008&CaseType=C.² While Plaintiff appears to be asserting claims concerning his arrest, trial, and convictions, he fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted because release from prison is not available in a civil rights action. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 481(1994)[stating that "habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for a state prisoner who challenges the fact or duration of his confinement and seeks immediate or speedier release, even though such a claim may come within the literal terms of § 1983"]; Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 487-88 (1973)[attacking the length of duration of confinement is within the core of habeas corpus]. Additionally, to the extent that Plaintiff is seeking monetary damages, his claims are barred by Heck, as any such claims would implicitly question the validity of his convictions and Plaintiff has not demonstrated that his convictions have been previously invalidated. Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-487.

To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to collaterally attack his sentences, Plaintiff's exclusive federal remedy to obtain release from custody is to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, after full exhaustion of his state remedies. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 481. Even so, the undersigned notes that Plaintiff has previously filed § 2254 petitions attacking his convictions for murder and burglary, with summary judgment being granted to respondent as to his first petition, see Baccus v. Burt, No. 0:06-1912-DCN-BM, 2007 WL 1468700 (D.S.C. May 16, 2007), with summary dismissals being entered on his two successive petitions, see Baccus v. State of South Carolina, 9:13-3133 (D.S.C);³ Baccus v. Cartledge, No. 9:11-1754-DCN, 2011 WL 3794232 (D.S.C. Aug. 24, 2011). Before Plaintiff can file another petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this court, he must seek and obtain leave to do so (i.e., written permission) from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 530 (2005) ["[B]efore the district court may accept a successive petition for filing, the court of appeals must determine that it presents a claim not previously raised that is sufficient to meet § 2244(b)(2)'s new-rule or actual-innocence provisions."] (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)).

With respect to Plaintiff's complaints about"discrimination", although racial discrimination claims are actionable under § 1983, Henry v. Van Cleve, 469 F.2d 687 (5th Cir. 1972), merely conclusory allegations of discrimination or discriminatory conduct are insufficient to state a claim. See Chapman v. Reynolds, 378 F. Supp. 1137, 1140(W.D. Va. 1974)["[A]bsent some factual evidence the court will not look behind the determinations of prison officials on mere accusations that they are racially motivated."].

To the extent Plaintiff may be attempting to dispute his custody classification, prisoners generally do not have a constitutionally recognized liberty interest in a particular security classification or prison placement. Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 468 (1983)[no constitutional right under the Due Process Clause to a particular security classification or prison placement]. In Sandin v. Conner,, 515 U.S. 472, (1995), the United States Supreme Court held that a change in the condition of a prisoner's confinement that does not exceed the scope of the original sentence gives rise to a federally-protected liberty interest only if it "imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life." Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. at 483. In Sandin, ...