Freeman v. Anderson City Police Dep't, C/A 8:21-cv-03872-JMC-JDA

CourtUnited States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
PartiesPrecias Kajuanna Freeman, Plaintiff, v. Anderson City Police Department, Pam Warden, Ray Lyn Haggan, Bramlette Dewey, Defendants.
Decision Date18 February 2022
Docket NumberC/A 8:21-cv-03872-JMC-JDA

Precias Kajuanna Freeman, Plaintiff,

Anderson City Police Department, Pam Warden, Ray Lyn Haggan, Bramlette Dewey, Defendants.

C/A No. 8:21-cv-03872-JMC-JDA

United States District Court, D. South Carolina

February 18, 2022



Precias Kajuanna Freeman (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, brings this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Defendants violated her constitutional rights. [Docs. 1; 12.] Plaintiff filed this action in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. [Docs. 2; 9.] Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C., the undersigned Magistrate Judge is authorized to review the complaint for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the District Court. For the reasons explained below, the Anderson City Police Department is subject to summary dismissal from this action. The action remains pending against the remaining Defendants.[1]


Plaintiff is a detainee and is currently incarcerated at the Spartanburg County Detention Center.[2] [Doc. 1 at 2.] Plaintiff commenced this civil rights action alleging


Defendants violated her constitutional rights by filing a Complaint on November 24, 2021.[3][Id. at 4; 12.] The undersigned conducted a review of the Complaint and, by Order dated December 1, 2021, directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint to cure the pleading deficiencies of her original Complaint identified by the Court in its Order. [Doc. 10.] Plaintiff then filed an Amended Complaint, which was entered on December 20, 2021. [Doc. 12.] Having reviewed the Amended Complaint, the undersigned concludes that Plaintiff has cured the pleading deficiencies of her original Complaint and that service of process should be authorized as to all Defendants but the Anderson City Police Department, which is subject to dismissal for the reasons below.

In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that certain officers employed by the Anderson City Police Department violated her personal safety and were deliberately indifferent in violation of the Eighth Amendment, resulting in serious injury. [Id. at 4.] Specifically, Plaintiff contends that the named Defendants failed to administer medical assistance to Plaintiff after she was physically attacked by another inmate. [Id. at 4-5.] Plaintiff alleges that the incident occurred on November 25, 2018, in the women's pod of the Anderson City Police Department's Detention Center. [Id. at 5.]


For her injuries, Plaintiff contends she suffered head trauma, contusions, bruises to the left and right side of her face, blood draining from her ears, headaches, dizziness, nausea, elevated blood pressure, black eyes, insomnia, and chipped teeth. [Id. at 6.] For her relief, Plaintiff seeks to be reimbursed for her medical expenses and to be compensated for her emotional and mental distress. [Id.]


Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the in forma pauperis statute, which authorizes the district court to dismiss a case if it is satisfied that the action “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, ” is “frivolous or malicious, ” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Further, Plaintiff is a prisoner under the definition in 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(c), and “seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Thus, even if Plaintiff had prepaid the full filing fee, this Court would still be charged with screening Plaintiff's lawsuit to identify cognizable claims or to dismiss the Complaint if (1) it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Because Plaintiff is a pro se litigant, her pleadings are accorded liberal construction and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by attorneys. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). However, even under this less stringent standard, the pro se pleadings remain subject to summary dismissal. 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 Plaintiff could prevail, it should do so, but a district court may not rewrite a petition to include claims that were never presented, Barnett v. Hargett, 174 F.3d 1128, 1133 (10th Cir. 1999), or construct Plaintiff's legal arguments for her, Small v. Endicott, 998 F.2d 411, 417-18 (7th Cir. 1993), or “conjure up questions never squarely presented” to the Court, Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985). The requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the Court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT