Nelson v. S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs.

• Decision Date: 30 June 2015
• Docket Number: Civil Action No.: 4:15-cv-2607-RBH-TER
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
• Parties: YVONNE NELSON, Plaintiff, v. South Carolina Department of Social Services, Horry County Department of Social Services, and Social Security Administration Defendants.

YVONNE NELSON, Plaintiff, v. South Carolina Department of Social Services, Horry County Department of Social Services,and Social Security Administration Defendants.

Civil Action No.: 4:15-cv-2607-RBH-TER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION

June 30, 2015

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Yvonne Nelson ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, initiated this civil action by filing a Complaint on May 28, 2015.¹ Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) DSC, the undersigned is authorized to review such complaints for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the District Court. After review, and for the reasons set forth herein, the Complaint in this action should be summarily dismissed, inter alia, for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted and immunity.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges as follows:

Regarding income resource of child support payments, the 1^st defendant repeatedly submitted incorrect amounts of child support. The incorrect amount maliciously affected other income resources, jeopardizing assistance. The 2^nd defendant refused to apply their policy 100% to my case that would allow full access of all programs that would promote family independency. Suspicious activity regarding a job injury case, I have probable cause to believe has been misused by this agency (2^nd defendant), need to be considered in this case. As well as other persons who know of this injury. However, I have probable cause to believe illegal networking has taken place to deprive myself and sons the full access of governmentprograms, according to their policy. I have, due to just cause, omitted signature until further into this case.

Regarding 2^nd defendant as well, the activity in my case had been misrepresented as far as application is concerned. The application at this point represents violations that need to be addressed in a court of law. Regarding the third defendant, my disability has not been decided on through illegal activities. I suspect it as been approved due to a statement made, then brushed off to mean something else. My children's income is in jeopardy through their illegal acts and misrepresentation. This illegal act is in conjunction to the job injury that occur, and left me unable to work. Therefore, a lawsuit is being submitted for relief of withholding income. Please note that I have stated facts everywhere to be considered. Because of this, I have nothing left to do but submit this complaint and a request for victim witness protection against those who retaliate against my right to relieve my brains due to memory loss that have been short termed at certain times. As this is what the defendants caused due to refusal of federal assistance. As a result of my advocation, body injuries has indirectly been conducted, as submitted previously in a briefing to this court. Restitution and restoration is requested for relief.

Victim witness protection in every aspect is requested. Networking practicing regarding the defendants and other participants is requested to stop, It constitutes abuse and neglect. This includes those who has benefited [sic] from my injuries, and has deprived myself and children of independent living. My right to advocate situations, and it not be interferred [sic] with by persons retaliating against the terms of advocation. I wish to be relieved of stolen identity, income conspiracy, and constant embarrassing explanation until trial, by way of preliminary injunctions. I also wish to be protected from the criminal act of stolen case practices that include dismissal.

My sons need to be 100% rehabilitated before any disability income has ended. That is not the case. As a request a preliminary injunction to stay their income is needed. Victim witness protection for myself and family members as a whole is requested. Restitution for retaliations that we already endure is requested as well. Mail tampering is an issue regarding unauthorized statements regarding income that I request relief from. Decreases of income is a request to be done only in a court of law with all parties involved. Relief from signing documents meaning more than what the signature is for. Such as this lawsuit. The signature shall mean statements are true for the purpose of applying the law for justification of violations, in the court of law at the expense of the defendants. Law enforcement agencies is requested to enforce all laws that applies to victim witness protection. I also request for a speedy trial and protection of income and housing stability without the disability conspiracy, but through the government programs. In other words a preliminary injunction for a stay of all income and housing for myself and family members is requested. I also wish to be relieved of illegal trade acts. I am an indigent and vulnerable plaintiff who has been a victim of crimes endured by the defendants, therefore, the defendants bears the responsibility of restitution and fees and cost, as relief from their injustice.

Complaint pp. 3-5.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

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. This review has been conducted in light of the following precedents: Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324-25, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972); and Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147 (4th Cir.1978). The Complaint sub judice has been filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which permits an indigent litigant to commence an action in federal court without paying the administrative costs of proceeding with the lawsuit. To protect against possible abuses of this privilege, the statute allows a district court to dismiss the case upon a finding 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." § 1915(e)(2) (B). A finding of frivolity can be made where the Complaint "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992). Hence, under § 1915(e)(2) (B), a claim based on a meritless legal theory may be dismissed sua sponte. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989); Allison v. Kyle, 66 F.3d 71 (5th Cir.1995).

This Court is required to liberally construe pro se documents, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007), holding them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976); Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 9 (1980) ( per curiam ). Even under this less stringent standard, however, the pro se complaint is 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 complaint to include claims that were never presented, Barnett v. Hargett, 174 F.3d 1128, 1133 (10th Cir.1999), orconstruct Plaintiff's legal arguments for him, 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 which set forth a claim currently cognizable in a federal district court. See Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir.1990).

The United States Supreme Court has recently made clear that, under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff in any civil action must do more than make mere conclusory statements to state a claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, --- U.S. ----, ----, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Rather, the complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim that is plausible on its face. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. The reviewing court need only accept as true the complaint's factual allegations, not its legal conclusions. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Expounding on its decision in Twombly, the United States Supreme Court stated in Iqbal: [T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require "detailed factual allegations," but it demands more than an unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. A pleading that offers "labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders "naked assertion[s]" devoid of "further factual enhancement."

A complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." A claim has facial plausibility when the Plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the Defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citations omitted) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 556, 557, 570 and citing to Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)); see also Bass v. Dupont, 324 F.3d 761,765 (4th Cir. 2003). The court "need not accept the [Plaintiff's] legal conclusions drawn from the facts," nor need it "accept as true unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments." Kloth v. Microsoft Corp., 444 F.3d 312, 319 (4th Cir.2006); see also Walker v. Prince George's Cnty., 575 F.3d...