Opinion
C. A. 8:24-cv-03686-DCC-KFM
07-02-2024
Austynn Wood, Plaintiff, v. Will Rains, Defendant.
REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Kevin F. McDonald United States Magistrate Judge.
The plaintiff, a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.), this magistrate judge is authorized to review all pretrial matters in cases filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and submit findings and recommendations to the district court. The plaintiff's complaint was entered on the docket on June 26, 2024 (doc. 1). The case is in proper form for judicial screening. However, for the reasons that follow, it is recommended that this matter be dismissed.
ALLEGATIONS
The plaintiff, a pretrial detainee at the Greenville County Detention Center (“the Detention Center”), filed this action seeking damages and injunctive relief from the defendant (doc. 1). Of note, the plaintiff's claims appear to involve his pending charge in the Pickens County General Sessions Court for trafficking fentanyl (the plaintiff has other pending charges that were indicted by the state grand jury). See Pickens County Public Index, https://publicindex.sccourts.org/Pickens/PublicIndex/PISearch.aspx (enter the plaintiff's name and 2023A3910100927) (last visited July 2, 2024).
Phillips v. Pitt Cnty. Mem. Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 180 (4th Cir. 2009) (courts “may properly take judicial notice of matters of public record.”); Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Coil, 887 F.2d 1236, 1239 (4th Cir. 1989) (“We note that ‘[t]he most frequent use of judicial notice . . . is in noticing the content of court records.'”).
The plaintiff alleges that the defendant, the public defender appointed to represent him, indicated that a discovery motion had been filed in the plaintiff's pending criminal case in October 2023, but when the plaintiff asked the Pickens County Clerk of Court about the pending motion in June 2024, the Clerk of Court indicated that no motion had been filed (doc. 1 at 4). The plaintiff alleges that the defendant violated his rights by not filing a motion for discovery and only visiting him once in eight months (id. at 5, 6). For relief, the plaintiff seeks money damages (id. at 6).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the in forma pauperis statute. This statute 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, the plaintiff is a prisoner under the definition of 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 the plaintiff had prepaid the full filing fee, this Court is charged with screening the 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.
As a pro se litigant, the plaintiff's 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 (2007) (per curiam). 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, 391 (4th Cir. 1990).
This complaint is filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which “‘is not itself a source of substantive rights,' but merely provides ‘a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.'” Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994) (quoting Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n. 3 (1979)). A civil action under § 1983 “creates a private right of action to vindicate violations of ‘rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws' of the United States.” Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356, 361 (2012). To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
DISCUSSION
As noted above, the plaintiff filed the instant action pursuant to § 1983, seeking damages from the defendant. Nevertheless, as outlined below, the plaintiff's complaint is subject to summary dismissal.
Will Rains, Esquire
The plaintiff's claims against Will Rains, Esq., the attorney appointed to represent him in his pending criminal charges, are subject to dismissal because Mr. Rains is not a state actor for purposes of § 1983. The plaintiff's claim against Mr. Rains are based on his representation of the plaintiff in the Pickens County General Sessions Court (see doc. 1). It is well-settled that “[a]nyone whose conduct is ‘fairly attributable to the state' can be sued as a state actor under § 1983.” Filarsky v. Delia, 566 U.S. 377, 383 (2012) (internal citation omitted). To determine whether state action is present, no single factor is determinative and the “totality of the circumstances” must be evaluated. See Goldstein v. Chestnut Ridge Volunteer Fire Co., 218 F.3d 337, 341-43 (4th Cir. 2000). However, purely private conduct, no matter how wrongful, is not actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the United States Constitution. See Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 936 (1982); Mentavlos v. Anderson, 249 F.3d 301, 310 (4th Cir. 2001).
The law is well-established that appointed defense counsel, such as Mr. Rains, are not state actors for purposes of § 1983 claims because the public defender acts not on behalf of the state; rather, the public defender “is the State's adversary.” Polk Cnty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 322-23 & n.13 (1981); see Mahaffey v. Sumter Cnty. Pub. Defender's Corp., C/A No. 3:06-3557-SB, 2007 WL 3001675, at *4 (D.S.C. Oct. 9, 2007) (“[T]he Sumter County Public Defender's Corp. did not act under color of state law and is entitled to summary dismissal.”); see also Hall v. Quillen, 631 F.2d 1154, 1155-56 (4th Cir. 1980) (finding no state action under § 1983, even where the plaintiff's attorney was court-appointed). However, public defenders are not immune from § 1983 liability when they conspire with state officials to deprive their client of federal rights. Jordan v. Doe, C/A No. 0:21-cv-02834-BHH-KFM, 2021 WL 9217649, at *4 (D.S.C. Sept. 21, 2021), Report and Recommendation adopted by 2022 WL 3141955 (D.S.C. Aug. 5, 2020) (internal citations omitted). Here, however, the plaintiff's conclusory allegations that Mr. Rains has only visited him once and has failed to file a motion for discovery in his criminal case, do not plausibly allege a conspiracy between Mr. Rains and the state to violate the plaintiff's rights. As noted, the employment relationship between a public defender and the state is insufficient to establish that a public defender acts under color of state law for purposes of § 1983. Accordingly, Mr. Rains is entitled to summary dismissal because he is not a state actor.
RECOMMENDATION
The undersigned is of the opinion that the plaintiff cannot cure the defects identified above by amending the complaint. Therefore, the undersigned recommends that the district court dismiss this action without prejudice, without leave to amend, and without issuance and service of process. See Britt v. DeJoy, 49 F.4th 790 (4th Cir. 2022) (published) (noting that “when a district court dismisses a complaint or all claims without providing leave to amend . . . the order dismissing the complaint is final and appealable”). The attention of the parties is directed to the important notice on the next page.
The plaintiff is warned that if the United States District Judge assigned to this matter adopts this report and recommendation, the dismissal of this action for failure to state a claim could later be deemed a strike under the three-strikes rule. See Pitts v. South Carolina, 65 F.4th 141 (4th Cir. 2023).
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. “[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committees note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk United States District Court 250 East North Street, Room 2300 Greenville, South Carolina 29601
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).