United States District Court, D. South Carolina
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
J. GOSSETT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
plaintiff, Glen Keith LaConey, a self-represented state
pretrial detainee, files this action in forma
pauperis under 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 that it should be summarily dismissed without
issuance and service of process.
indicates he is currently being held in the Alvin S. Glenn
Detention Center in Richland County, South Carolina, on state
criminal charges of harassment in the first degree and
threatening the use of destructive devices. (Compl., ECF No.
1 at 10.) He indicates he was arrested on July 3, 2014 and
released on bond on October 3, 2014. (Id.) Plaintiff
was indicted on November 12, 2014. (Id.) Plaintiff
was appointed a public defender. (Id.) Trials for
his charges were originally set for December 7, 2015 and May
31, 2016, but were delayed for unknown reasons.
21, 2016, Plaintiff's bond was revoked and a competency
hearing was ordered by Defendant Judge R. Knox McMahon, after
he originally rejected the State's multiple requests for
a competency hearing. (Id. at 11.) On August 1,
2016, Plaintiff submitted to a competency examination.
(Id.) Plaintiff claims that the bond revocation and
competency hearing were “designed to oppress and to
coerce [Plaintiff] into a plea arrangement which [Plaintiff]
has persistently rejected.” (Id.) A competency
hearing was scheduled for February 2, 2018, despite the fact
that a trial date was set for November 7, 2016. (Id.
at 12.) On November 7, 2016, Plaintiff was transported to
court, expecting a trial, but instead was taken to the
probate court to be screened for participation in a mental
health court program. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges the
mental health court program was “pretext designed to
induce” him into a plea agreement. (Id.)
August 31, 2017, Defendant Judge Newman denied
Plaintiff's motion for reinstatement of bond.
(Id.) On February 2, 2018, Judge Newman held a
competency hearing and found Plaintiff competent to stand
trial. (Id. at 14.) Plaintiff's trial was
scheduled for the week of June 11, 2018. (Id.)
Plaintiff alleges the case has not been officially docketed
for trial, the State has not produced discovery, and
Plaintiff has not been “formally arraigned.”
raises numerous allegations of unlawful actions in this state
criminal proceeding. Plaintiff claims the delay in holding a
trial on his charges violates his constitutional right to a
speedy trial, is presumptively prejudicial, and is intended
to “oppress and coerce” him into a plea
agreement. (Id. at 16.) Plaintiff contends that the
officers of the Richland County Court of General Sessions
should be disqualified from and conflicted out of his case,
and any actions they have taken are null and
void. (Id. at 17.) Thus, he argues his
right to a trial before a fair and impartial tribunal has
been compromised. (Id.) He alleges error in the
trial court's findings in the competency hearing and
revocation hearing. (Id. at 20.) He argues that his
detention is unlawful under the Equal Protection and Due
Process Clauses. (Id.) He argues that Judge
McMahon's order appointing counsel is null and void, and
in violation of his right to counsel, due process, and equal
protection. (Id.) He further alleges that all of the
defendants participated in a conspiracy to violate his civil
rights. (Id.) He claims the State's failure to
produce discovery violated his right to due process and equal
relief from this court, Plaintiff seeks immediate release
from detention, vacation of the trial court's order
appointing counsel, dismissal of his indictments, and to
enjoin the trial court from entertaining further proceedings.
(Id. at 22.) Alternatively, he seeks a change of
venue because of the delay in receiving a trial.
(Id.) Plaintiff also seeks monetary damages against
the defendants. (Id.)
Standard of Review
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).
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
Equitable and ...