Brady v. Holmes
| Docket Number | 2:23-cv-02067-BHH-MGB |
| Decision Date | 29 June 2023 |
| Parties | Lewis Brady, Plaintiff, v. Thomas Holmes; Rafael James; David Schwacke; M. Erica; M. Tupac; M. Gina; and Randy Demory, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Lewis Brady (“Plaintiff”), a state detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis brings this action seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1983 and other South Carolina state law. (Dkt. No. 1.) Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), the undersigned is authorized to review all pretrial matters in this case and submit findings and recommendations to the United States District Judge. For the reasons discussed below, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Schwacke and James be dismissed.
The instant Complaint is premised on a series of four events that took place in August 2022, beginning with what appears to be a “failure to protect” claim involving Defendant Thomas Holmes, an officer with the St. Stephens Police Department (Claim 1). According to the Complaint, on or around August 22, 2022, Plaintiff approached Officer Holmes “on foot” and reported that members of a gang were pursuing him in their vehicles with the intent to kill him. (Dkt. No. 1 at 3.) Plaintiff claims that Officer Holmes did not believe him and simply offered to have another officer drive Plaintiff home. (Id.) Plaintiff contends that racism “played a major role” in Officer Holmes' purported “failure to render aid” because he assumed that Plaintiff-a “black male”-was “hallucinating and on drugs.” (Id.) Plaintiff seeks over $1 million in damages based on Officer Holmes' alleged conduct. (Id.)
Next the Complaint challenges certain conditions of confinement Plaintiff experienced at the Hill-Finklea Detention Center (“Hill-Finklea”) in Berkeley County, South Carolina from August 23, 2022, through September 11, 2023 (Claim 2).[1](Id. at 4.) Specifically, Plaintiff claims that he suffers from diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and high blood pressure and was designated as a “critical care inmate” while housed at the detention center. (Id.) Despite being notified of Plaintiff's conditions by medical staff, the Complaint alleges that Defendants M. Erica, M. Tupac, and M. Gina-dieticians contracted to perform food services at Hill-Finklea Detention Center- continued to serve him processed meats and other foods high in sodium, which caused various inflammation issues. (Id.) Plaintiff suggests that he sent an internal grievance regarding his diet and medical concerns to Defendant Randy Demory, the Director of Hill-Finklea Detention Center, although it is unclear whether Defendant Demory responded to, or even received, the grievance. (Id.)
The Complaint's next claim involves Defendant David Schwacke, who served as Plaintiff's defense counsel in his criminal proceedings before the Berkeley County Court of General Sessions (Claim 3). Plaintiff claims that Defendant Schwacke denied his requests to file a motion for speedy trial, responding that “the courts [were] backed up because of COVID.” (Id.) The Complaint also appears to allege that Defendant Schwacke refused to show Plaintiff certain “material evidence” and “defense discovery” that would have supported a motion for speedy trial. Plaintiff seeks over $1 million in damages for “malpractice” and “negligence.” (Id.)
Finally, the Complaint alleges claims of “defamation of character” and “slander” against Defendant Rafael James, a news anchor with Live 5 News (Claim 4). (Id. at 5.) According to Plaintiff, Defendant James “aired a program, live telecast as well as via internet” in August 2022 that falsely stated Plaintiff had been charged with kidnapping and attempted murder. (Id.) Plaintiff claims that “no retraction was ever made,” despite the victim of these purported crimes notifying the Berkeley County Sheriff that Plaintiff was innocent. Once again, Plaintiff seeks over $1 million in damages. (Id.) This is the extent of the Complaint.
In screening this case, the undersigned determined that the Complaint alleged separate and distinct incidents against individuals who, for the most part, were unrelated. In other words, the Complaint essentially presented four separate lawsuits bundled into one omnibus pleading. Under Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the joinder of several parties is permitted only if the claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence or series thereof and contain a question of fact or law common to all the defendants. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a); see also Cooper v. South Carolina, No. 3:17-cv-3205-CMC-PJG, 2017 WL 6388042, at *3 (D.S.C. Dec. 14, 2017) (). Accordingly, the undersigned issued an order notifying Plaintiff that his claims must be severed into separate actions for purposes of judicial economy and in keeping with the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). (See Dkt. No. 4.) The order clarified that the instant case (Case No. 2:23-cv-02067-BHH-MGB) would be limited to Claim 1 against Defendant Holmes, while Claim 2 against Defendants Erica, Tupac, Gina, and Demory (the “Hill-Finklea Defendants”) would be docketed in a separate civil action and assigned a new case number. With respect to Claims 3 and 4, however, the undersigned found that severing the allegations against Defendants Schwacke and James into new lawsuits would be futile and inefficient, as they are plainly subject to dismissal and cannot be cured by amendment. This Report and Recommendation addresses those grounds for dismissal below.
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 the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996). The Complaint has been filed 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, and is also governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires the court to review a complaint filed by a prisoner that seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
To protect against possible abuses, the court must dismiss any prisoner complaints, or portions of complaints, that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also § 1915A(b). A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). A claim based on a meritless legal theory may be dismissed sua sponte “at any time” under § 1915(e)(2)(B). Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324-25 (1989). The United States Supreme Court has explained that the statute “is designed largely to discourage the filing of, and waste of judicial and private resources upon, baseless lawsuits.” Id. at 326.
As to failure to state a claim, a complaint filed in federal court must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” as required under Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. To satisfy this standard, a plaintiff must do more than make conclusory statements. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (). Rather, the complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” See id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). This plausibility determination is “a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. When “it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations,” Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), the complaint fails to state a claim.
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). A federal court is therefore charged with liberally construing a complaint filed by a Pro se litigant to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Nonetheless, the requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the court can ignore a clear failure to allege facts that set forth a cognizable claim under Rule 8(a)(2). See Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 39091 (4th Cir. 1990); see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 684 (). The Fourth Circuit has explained that “though pro se litigants cannot, of course, be expected to frame legal issues with the clarity and precision ideally evident in the work of those trained in law, neither can district courts be required to conjure up and decide issues never fairly presented to them.” Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1276 (4th Cir. 1985).
As stated above, the undersigned determined during initial review that Plaintiff's Complaint improperly attempted to join multiple unrelated claims and Defendants in one action. Accordingly, the undersigned severed Plaintiff's claims into separate lawsuits, ordering that the instant case be limited to Claim 1 against Defendant Holmes, and a new civil action be...
To continue reading
Request your trial