Rivers v. Goodstein
| Decision Date | 07 September 2018 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:18-cv-2032-RMG-MGB |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
| Parties | Brenda H. Rivers, Plaintiff, v. Dianne Goodstein, South Carolina State Court Judge, Defendant. |
Brenda H. Rivers ("Plaintiff") has filed a civil action and has paid the full filing fee. (DE# 1, Filing fee $400 receipt number SCX200015653). Plaintiff is a non-prisoner litigant who is proceeding pro se. Plaintiff was given notice of leave to amend, and Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on August 27, 2018. (DE#9). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(D.S.C.), the United States Magistrate Judge is authorized to submit findings and recommendations to the United States District Judge. After careful review, the Magistrate Judge recommends that this case is both legally and factually frivolous, and should be dismissed, with prejudice, and without issuance and service of process, for the following reasons:
I. The Present Lawsuit
The pro se Plaintiff filed a Complaint, describing her case as a "civil/criminal complaint Intentional Tort action" and also as "a writ for notice of removal from the Courts of General Sessions to the US District Courts of the 14th District in Charleston." (DE# 1 at 1). She sued the State of South Carolina, Tammy Mickalis ("Seller"), Judge Dianne Goodstein, Christy L. Scott (Attorney), an "Unidentified Paralegal," Jay S. Masty (Attorney), Tammy Morgan (Paralegal), and Sheriff R.A. Strickland. (DE# 1). The Complaint's allegations were unclear and difficult to follow. Plaintiff complained about search warrants, searches, arrests, and asked for dismissal of various criminal charges against herself and other people. She appeared to be attempting to interfere with several pending state prosecutions. She also referred to a civil lawsuit in 2016, a real estate sale, eminent domain by SC-DOT, said her husband has been jailed, and referred to contempt of court. (Id.. at ¶ 46). She referred to bomb threats, a bomb that she allegedly placed in her son-in-law's SUV (which was impounded), "contaminated mail" she sent to several attorneys, and a handgun that she allegedly has a license to carry. (Id.. at 32, ¶¶ 29-36, 53). She complained of an allegedly illegal search. (¶ 40). She complained that the state judge signed "a court order to have the Plaintiff arrested for obstruction of justice" and alleged that the "Solicitor is unlawfully attempting to prosecute and convict Plaintiff for a non-existed (sic) crime." (¶¶ 25-27). She sued her former attorneys (¶ 41). She demanded refund of her cash bond, dismissal of criminal charges and warrants, return of seized property, demanded that this federal court order SC-DOT to pay her $7,500 for gravel in her driveway, wanted free cable television service for life, and wanted the state judge to appear on national television to apologize to Plaintiff (Id. at 31-32 and ¶ 54, "Relief Sought").
In light of the apparent pleading deficiencies of such document, this Court entered an Order giving Plaintiff notice of leave to amend her Complaint. (DE#7, 08/15/18). This Court explained that Complaint appeared to be subject to dismissal, but that the Court was giving Plaintiff an opportunity to file an Amended Complaint on or by September 5, 2018. This Court explained that although the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has emphasized that it is not the Court's role to resolve pleading deficiencies prior to dismissal, see Abdul-Mumit v. Alexandria Hyundai, LLC, -- F.3d , 2018 WL 3405474 (4th Cir. July 13, 2018), the Fourth Circuit Court ofAppeals has also instructed that a pro se plaintiff should generally be given an opportunity to file an Amended Complaint in order to correct factual pleading deficiencies, see Stinnie v. Holcomb, F.App'x , 2018 WL 2337750 (4th Cir. May 23, 2018) (citing Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc., Inc., 807 F.3d 619 (4th Cir. 2015)); and see Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 15 (). In response, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (DE#9).
In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sues the state judge who is presiding over state criminal proceedings against Plaintiff and Plaintiff's husband. (DE# 9). Plaintiff contends (verbatim) that Judge "Goodstein is guilty of committing the criminal offenses listed below and is criminally charge[d] according." (Id. at 2). Plaintiff lists the following as "criminal charges;" A) Slander; B) Character assassination; C) Defamation of character; D) Fraud; E) Deliberate Misrepresentations material facts; F) Fraudulent Issue Bench Warrant; G) Reckless (criminal) endangerment; H) Obstruction of justice; I) Nonfeasance; J) Misfeasance; K) Malfeasance; L) Fraudulent Arrest Warrants Issue a Violation of "Ex post facto" for wrongful charge of Intimidation of a judge and Failure to Appear; M) Violation of Judges (sic) Oath" and Canons 3; N) Breaking and Entering, per, but not just limited to, SCC - Title 16 - Crimes and Offenses, CHAPTER 11, Offenses Against Property, ARTICLE 1.
Plaintiff also lists (verbatim): "Violations of Rights to Privacy" under Amendment I (Privacy of Beliefs) (More General Protection for Privacy); Amendment Ill (Privacy of the Home); Amendment IV (); and Amendment XIV (Liberty Clause). Plaintiff refers to constitutional provisions, but has not alleged any non-conclusory facts indicating how these constitutional provisions were purportedly violated. Plaintiff appears to be seeking to interfere with pending state criminal proceedings against Plaintiff and her husband. Plaintiff also seeks damages from the state judge for presiding over those pending state criminalproceedings (i.e. she wants "reimbursement" for various state court expenses and $20,000 for Plaintiff's "pain and suffering" for being prosecuted in state court).
In her attached memorandum, Plaintiff states her theory that she and her husband, as moving parties, hold "absolute supreme authority over the lawsuit/court action, ...decides how the lawsuit is to proceed, when to be heard ...the presiding judges have no authority or say to the contrary." (DE# 9-1 at 6). She contends (verbatim) that "if the Moving Party is the Sui Juris not only does the Moving Party he/she have unquestionable authority but also have the inalienable rights as well over the civil or criminal lawsuit.' (Id.). Plaintiff contends that the Defendant state judge "wilfully committed several felonies" when she set a hearing or otherwise controlled her own docket, and thereby violated her oath of office. (Id. at 7). Plaintiff contends that Judge Goodstein "committed a class 'A' felony when she issue[d] a court order for the arrest of the Plaintiff..." (Id. at 10). Plaintiff disputes the basis for the arrest warrant. According to Plaintiff, she filed a "notice of removal" on January 17, 2018 in state court that, according to Plaintiff, "nulls and voids the fraudulent charge of obstruction of justice and the bogus bench warrant" for Plaintiff's arrest. (Id. at 11). Much of Plaintiff's memorandum is essentially incomprehensible. She signs such document as "Brenda H. Rivers™©, Sui Juris, Authorized Representative for "debtor" Civil/Criminal Complaint Intentional Tort Action." (Id. at 18).
For relief, Plaintiff asks (verbatim) for this Court to:
(DE#9 at 9).
II. Standard of Review
Although Plaintiff insists that she is not "pro se," such term simply means "proceeding without the assistance of an attorney." The record reflects that no attorney has entered an appearance on Plaintiff's behalf in this case. Therefore, by definition, she is proceeding "pro se."
Pro se pleadings are liberally construed and are held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by attorneys. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). However, "[t]he 'special judicial solicitude' with which a district court should view ... pro se complaints does not transform the court into an advocate. United States v. Wilson, 699 F.3d 789, 797 (4th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S.Ct. 2401 (2013). Only those questions which are squarely presented to a court may properly be addressed. Weller v. Dept. of Soc. Servs. for City of Baltimore, 901 F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 1990). Giving "liberal construction" does not mean that the Court can ignore a pro se plaintiff's clear failure to allege facts that set forth a cognizable claim. "Principles requiring generous construction of pro se complaints ... [do] not require ... courts to conjure up questions never squarely presented to them." Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985) cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1088 (1986).
Pre-screening under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A applies to cases brought by prisoners and is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial