Haynes Jr. v. Ravenell et al, No. 5:2021cv02076 - Document 9 (D.S.C. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER granting plaintiff twenty-one (21) days from the date this order is entered to file an amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) that corrects the deficiencies identified in this order. If plain tiff fails to file an amended complaint that corrects those deficiencies, this action will be recommended for summary dismissal. (Amended Complaint due by 9/3/2021. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett on 8/13/2021. (mmcd)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Haynes Jr. v. Ravenell et al 5:21-cv-02076-SAL-PJG Date Filed 08/13/21 Entry Number 9 Page 1 of 6 Doc. 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ORANGEBURG DIVISION Melvin Shaquille Haynes, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Leroy Ravenell, Sheriff; John C. Stohes, Jr., Investigator; Lt. Rhodan, OCDC; Captain Govan, OCDC; Ms. Dozier, OCDC, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C/A No. 5:21-2076-SAL-PJG ORDER REGARDING AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT Plaintiff Melvin Shaquille Haynes, Jr., a self-represented state pretrial detainee, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is before the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.) for initial review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and § 1915A. Having reviewed the Complaint in accordance with applicable law, the court finds this action is subject to summary dismissal if Plaintiff does not amend the Complaint to cure the deficiencies identified herein. I. Factual and Procedural Background Plaintiff is an inmate in the Orangeburg-Calhoun County Detention Center. Plaintiff alleges he was charged for an unspecified crime at the detention center that involved Plaintiff’s alleged assault of another inmate. Plaintiff alleges that incident was caused by jail officials’ failure to treat Plaintiff’s mental health and by their allowing an inmate with disciplinary issues to be detained in the same jail as Plaintiff. Plaintiff claims Defendants Rhodan and Govan are the jail officials responsible for the incident. Plaintiff also alleges that he did not commit the crime for which he is detained, he is not provided pens to write his legal claims, and he is on lockdown so much that he does not get to shower enough. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Page 1 of 6 Dockets.Justia.com 5:21-cv-02076-SAL-PJG Date Filed 08/13/21 Entry Number 9 Page 2 of 6 § 1983 for violations of the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause, various Fourth Amendment violations, outrage, gross negligence, and abuse of process. He seeks damages. II. Discussion A. 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 the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996), including 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 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. See McLean v. United States, 566 F.3d 391 (4th Cir. 2009). Section 1915A requires, and § 1915 allows, a district court to dismiss the case upon a finding that the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). To state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the plaintiff must do more than make mere conclusory statements. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Rather, the complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim that is plausible on its face. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. The reviewing court need only accept as true the complaint’s factual allegations, not its legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Page 2 of 6 5:21-cv-02076-SAL-PJG Date Filed 08/13/21 Entry Number 9 Page 3 of 6 This court is required to liberally construe pro se complaints, which are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); King v. Rubenstein, 825 F.3d 206, 214 (4th Cir. 2016). Nonetheless, 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 (4th Cir. 1990); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 684 (2009) (outlining pleading requirements under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for “all civil actions”). B. Analysis The 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)). To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege: (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). Here, Plaintiff fails to allege any facts about the named defendants that could plausibly show that they had any involvement in the purported constitutional violations. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676 (providing that a plaintiff in a § 1983 action must plead that the defendant, through his own individual actions, violated the Constitution). For instance, Plaintiff claims Defendant Rhodan “should be held accountable for his choices” and Defendant Govan “should be checking up on stuff like this” (Compl., ECF No. 1 at 6), but Plaintiff fails to allege any facts that would plausibly show these defendants were involved in decisions about treating Plaintiff’s mental health or housing the inmate Plaintiff allegedly assaulted. See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 850 (4th Cir. 1985) (“In order for an individual to be liable under § 1983, it must be ‘affirmatively shown Page 3 of 6 5:21-cv-02076-SAL-PJG Date Filed 08/13/21 Entry Number 9 Page 4 of 6 that the official charged acted personally in the deprivation of the plaintiff’s rights. The doctrine of respondeat superior has no application under this section.’ ”) (quoting Vinnedge v. Gibbs, 550 F.2d 926, 928 (4th Cir. 1977)). As to Defendants Ravenell, Stohes, and Dozier, Plaintiff fails to even mention them in the body of the complaint; nor does Plaintiff provide any facts that would plausibly show that any of the defendants were involved in his allegations that he did not commit the crime for which he is detained, that he is not provided pens to write his legal claims, or that he is on lockdown so much that he does not get to shower enough. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 (requiring that a pleading contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”); Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (stating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, but it requires more than a plain accusation that the defendant unlawfully harmed the plaintiff, devoid of factual support). Consequently, Plaintiff’s Complaint is subject to summary dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff is hereby granted twenty-one (21) days from the date this order is entered (plus three days for mail time) to file an amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) that corrects the deficiencies identified above. 1 If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint that corrects those deficiencies, this action will be recommended for summary dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and § 1915A. 1 Any amended complaint filed by Plaintiff is also subject to further initial review by the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and § 1915A. Further, Plaintiff is reminded that an amended complaint replaces the original complaint and should be complete in itself. See Young v. City of Mount Ranier, 238 F .3d 567, 572 (4th Cir. 2001) (“As a general rule, an amended pleading ordinarily supersedes the original and renders it of no legal effect.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also 6 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 1476 (3d ed. 2017) (“A pleading that has been amended under Rule 15(a) supersedes the pleading it modifies and remains in effect throughout the action unless it subsequently is modified. Once an amended pleading is interposed, the original pleading no longer performs any function in the case . . .”). Page 4 of 6 5:21-cv-02076-SAL-PJG Date Filed 08/13/21 Entry Number 9 Page 5 of 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. August 13, 2021 Columbia, South Carolina __________________________________________ Paige J. Gossett UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff’s attention is directed to the important WARNING on the following page. Page 5 of 6 5:21-cv-02076-SAL-PJG Date Filed 08/13/21 Entry Number 9 Page 6 of 6 IMPORTANT INFORMATION . . . PLEASE READ CAREFULLY WARNING TO PRO SE PARTY OR NONPARTY FILERS ALL DOCUMENTS THAT YOU FILE WITH THE COURT WILL BE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC ON THE INTERNET THROUGH PACER (PUBLIC ACCESS TO COURT ELECTRONIC RECORDS) AND THE COURT’S ELECTRONIC CASE FILING SYSTEM. CERTAIN PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN, OR SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM, ALL DOCUMENTS BEFORE YOU SUBMIT THE DOCUMENTS TO THE COURT FOR FILING. Rule 5.2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for privacy protection of electronic or paper filings made with the court. Rule 5.2 applies to ALL documents submitted for filing, including pleadings, exhibits to pleadings, discovery responses, and any other document submitted by any party or nonparty for filing. Unless otherwise ordered by the court, a party or nonparty filer should not put certain types of an individual’s personal identifying information in documents submitted for filing to any United States District Court. If it is necessary to file a document that already contains personal identifying information, the personal identifying information should be “blacked out” or redacted prior to submitting the document to the Clerk of Court for filing. A person filing any document containing their own personal identifying information waives the protection of Rule 5.2(a) by filing the information without redaction and not under seal. 1. Personal information protected by Rule 5.2(a): (a) Social Security and Taxpayer identification numbers. If an individual’s social security number or a taxpayer identification number must be included in a document, the filer may include only the last four digits of that number. (b) Names of Minor Children. If the involvement of a minor child must be mentioned, the filer may include only the initials of that child. (c) Dates of Birth. If an individual’s date of birth must be included in a document, the filer may include only the year of birth. (d) Financial Account Numbers. If financial account numbers are relevant, the filer may include only the last four digits of these numbers. 2. Protection of other sensitive personal information – such as driver’s license numbers and alien registration numbers – may be sought under Rule 5.2(d) (filings made under seal) and (e) (protective orders). Page 6 of 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
