United States District Court, D. South Carolina
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JACQUELYN D. AUSTIN, Magistrate Judge.
Kalvin Dontay Hunt ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, brings this civil action alleging violations of his constitutional rights. It appears that Plaintiff is committed to the South Carolina Department of Mental Health, and he files this action in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The Complaint is subject to summary dismissal.
Plaintiff resides at the Columbia Regional Correct Care Center in Columbia, South Carolina. [Doc. 1.] He brings this action against the United States President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense, Joint Chief of Staff, Secretary of the Navy, Commandant of Marine Corps, Sergeant Major of Marine Corps, Tricare, and United States Federal Government. [ Id. ] He alleges that this action concerns: "criminal negligence, racial discrimination, prejudice, wrongful discharge, indecent assault, taxation without representation, public humiliation and exploitation." [ Id. ]
Liberally construed, Plaintiff alleges the following facts. More than six years ago, while he was serving in the military, Plaintiff was a victim of an indecent assault by another male. [ Id. ] The other male placed his testicles on Plaintiff's face while he was sleeping and took a picture. [ Id. ] Plaintiff was distressed and began self-medicating with alcohol and drugs for a six-year period. [ Id. ] Plaintiff reported the incident to a gunnery sergeant who failed to take action. [ Id. ] This incident "was solely responsible for destroying [his military] career, " and he was separated for "bad conduct" and demoted from an E-5 to E-1. [ Id. ]
Plaintiff complained of suicidal thoughts due to the incident, but the military did not give him "a medical opt out." [ Id. ] "Tricare health care professionals they diagnosed [Plaintiff] as a malingerer, [feigning] for monetary gain although [he is] a OEF/OIF veteran." [ Id. ] Although Plaintiff was mentally unstable, he was placed on "unpaid appellate leave status" with a 90-day supply of anti-psychotic medication but without a proper out-patient treatment plan. [ Id. ] Plaintiff became psychotic and homeless and did not have "V.A. coverage eligibility." [ Id. ]
During Plaintiff's time in a Tricare mental health facility, he noticed that other service members with the same symptoms were medically relieved from service. [ Id. ] Because of his ethnicity[*], Plaintiff was cleared for duty on several occasions. [ Id. ]
In February of 2012, Plaintiff committed a murder due to his mental illness. [ Id. ] After serving 34 months in the Beaufort County Detention Center, Plaintiff was found "criminally insane during the commission of the crime due to [schizophrenia] paranoid type." [ Id. ]
Plaintiff contends that he did not receive proper treatment through the victim advocacy program, and the government was criminally negligent which caused him to commit the murder. [ Id. ] Plaintiff alleges he has written complaints to the N.A.A.C.P., the commander-in-chief, and members of the cabinet. [ Id. ] He also alleges he has been the victim of taxation without representation. [ Id. ] And, based on these facts, his constitutional rights have been violated. [ Id. ]
For his relief, Plaintiff seeks "public vindication from the crime by way of presidential pardon." [ Id. ] He seeks reimbursement for his legal fees, health care costs, and medical severance back-pay. [ Id. ] He requests to be restored to E-5 rank with a medical retirement and to receive all benefits offered to veterans. [ Id. ] He also seeks damages and a "congressional investigation be conducted to exonerate [him] from blame in this case completely." [ Id. ]
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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 the Complaint for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the District Court. 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).
As a pro se litigant, 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, 94 (2007) ( per curiam ). However, even under this less stringent standard, the pro se pleading remains 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 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 ...