United States District Court, D. South Carolina
ORDER REGARDING AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT
J. GOSSETT, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
plaintiff, Steven Hewitt, a self-represented state pretrial
detainee, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. The Complaint has been filed pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915 and § 1915A. 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.). Having reviewed the Complaint in
accordance with applicable law, the court concludes the
action is subject to summary dismissal if Plaintiff does not
amend his Complaint.
Factual and Procedural Background
and inmate at the Georgetown County Detention Center,
indicates that on October 5, 2017, his psychological
medication was discontinued without warning. He claims he was
told that he stopped receiving the medications as punishment
“since they could never find any pills in my cell when
they searched.” (Compl., ECF No. 1 at 6.) He claims the
side effects of not taking this mediation can be dangerous
and cause harm. He seeks damages, a temporary restraining
order, and a preliminary injunction pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 for deliberate indifference to serious medical
Standard of Review
established local procedure in this judicial district, a
careful review has been made of the pro se
Complaint. 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. This
statute allows a district court to dismiss the case upon a
finding that the action “is frivolous or 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.
order 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.
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
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 allows “a party who
has been deprived of a federal right under the color of state
law to seek relief.” City of Monterey v. Del Monte
Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., 526 U.S. 687, 707 (1999). 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).
Plaintiff has failed to provide facts that would show that
the defendants violated Plaintiff's constitutional
rights, or that he is entitled to relief against them. Most
importantly, Plaintiff provides no facts about any of the
named defendants. 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); 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 that the official charged acted
personally in the deprivation of the plaintiff's
rights.' ”) (quoting Vinnedge v. Gibbs,
550 F.2d, 928 (4th Cir. 1977)). Therefore, he fails to
plausibly allege that the defendants violated his rights,
which is necessary to state a claim pursuant to § 1983.
See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Twombly, 550
U.S. at 570.
Plaintiff's Complaint is subject to summary dismissal
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. The undersigned is giving Plaintiff
fourteen (14) 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. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended
complaint that corrects those deficiencies, the undersigned
will recommend the action be summarily dismissed.