United States District Court, D. South Carolina
V. Hodges, United States Magistrate Judge
Evans (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis, filed this action seeking compensatory
damages and injunctive relief. Plaintiff originally attempted
to sue York County, City of Rock Hill, B.H. Management, Paces
River Apartment (“Paces River”), Magistrate Judge
Clifford Berinsky (“Berinsky”), Thomas I. Howard,
Brownlee Law Firm, PLLC, Dina D. Biggs, Alyssa Pruitt, and
Land Star Transportation Logistic, Inc. (collectively
“Defendants”), alleging a violation of his
constitutional rights. This matter comes before the court on
Plaintiff's motion to amend [ECF No. 28].
Factual and Procedural Background
alleges Defendants discriminated against him based on his
race, disability, and age. [ECF No. 1 at 2]. Specifically,
Plaintiff claims Paces River filed an application for
ejectment in magistrate court against him on June 17, 2015.
Id. at 3. Plaintiff states Paces River received a
judgment in favor of ejectment that was stayed until July 15,
2015. Id. Plaintiff alleges he filed a notice of
appeal on July 9, 2015. Id. Plaintiff also claims he
filed a complaint against Berinsky on July 17, 2015,
concerning Berinsky's actions and behaviors in
Plaintiff's ejectment action. Id. Plaintiff
states the matter went before Judge Kimball in the Sixteenth
Judicial Circuit on August 13, 2015, and the judgment of
ejectment was affirmed. Id. Plaintiff claims he
filed a notice of appeal with the South Carolina Court of
Appeals (“Court of Appeals”) on September 17,
2015, and the Court of Appeals dismissed his appeal on
November 23, 2015. Id. Plaintiff alleges Berinsky
signed a writ of ejectment on November 23, 2015, which was
served on Plaintiff on November 25, 2015. Id. at 4.
Plaintiff states the York County magistrate illegally evicted
him on December 4. Id. Plaintiff claims on or around
this same day, the City of Rock Hill refused to issue a
warrant for the agents of Paces River. Id. at 4.
Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief.
March 29, 2016, the Honorable Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., United
States District Judge, adopted the undersigned's
recommendation that Plaintiff's complaint be summarily
dismissed. [ECF No. 15]. The undersigned's recommendation
was based on Plaintiff's failure to plead sufficient
allegations to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted. [ECF No. 10]. Specifically, the undersigned noted
that Plaintiff did not provide any factual allegations
against B.H. Management, Thomas I. Howard, Brownlee Law Firm,
PLLC, Dina D. Biggs, Alyssa Pruitt, and Land Star
Transportation Logistic, Inc. Id. The undersigned
further recommended the claims against York County, City of
Rock Hill, Paces River and Berinksy, because Plaintiff had
failed to allege facts stating a plausible cause of action.
Plaintiff appealed Judge Anderson's order and moved for
reconsideration, Judge Anderson ordered that Plaintiff file
an amended complaint by October 26, 2016, if he wished to
continue this case. [ECF No. 26]. On October 28, 2016,
Plaintiff filed the instant motion. [ECF No. 28]. Judge
Anderson referred the case to the undersigned for further
pretrial proceedings. [ECF No. 29].
may file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies in his
original complaint. [ECF No. 23, 26]. However,
Plaintiff's motion to amend does not contain additional
factual allegations, but instead argues that he cannot prove
his claims without discovery.
complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Although the court must
liberally construe a pro se complaint, the United States
Supreme Court has made it clear that a plaintiff must do more
than make conclusory statements to state a claim. See
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677‒78 (2009);
Bell Atlantic 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, and the reviewing court need only accept as true
the complaint's factual allegations, not its legal
conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678‒79.
Although Plaintiff is not required to plead facts sufficient
to prove his case as an evidentiary matter in the complaint,
he must allege facts that support a claim for relief.
Bass v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 324 F.3d
761, 765 (4th Cir. 2003); Trulock v. Freeh, 275 F.3d
391, 405 (4th Cir. 2001) (finding that plaintiff must
“offer more detail, however, than the bald statement
that he has a valid claim of some type against the
motion to amend is granted and Plaintiff is directed to file
an amended complaint by November 30, 2016. Failure to file an
amended complaint may result in the dismissal of his case.
Plaintiff is advised that repetition of the allegations in
his original complaint, without more, is insufficient to
proceed in this court.
motion to amend [ECF No 28] is granted. Plaintiff is directed
to file an ...