United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Mr. James Muhammad, Plaintiff,
Aiken Public Safety; Aiken Sheriff's Department; Sheriff Mike Hunt; ACDC; Aiken County Hospital; Deputy Auper; Officer Wise & his boss; Aiken Regional Hospital; Dr. Marion Clarke & Staffs; and Aurora Pavilion Behavioral Health, Defendants.
ORDER AND NOTICE
V. Hodges United States Magistrate Judge
James Muhammad (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se
and in forma pauperis, filed an amended complaint against
Aiken Public Safety, Aiken Sheriff's Department, Sheriff
Mike Hunt, the Aiken County Detention Center
(“ACDC”), Aiken County Hospital, Deputy Auper,
Officer Wise and his boss, Aiken Regional Hospital, Dr.
Marion Clarke and staff, and Aurora Pavilion Behavioral
Hospital (collectively “Defendants”), alleging a
violation of his constitutional rights. [ECF No. 39].
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)
and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.), the undersigned
is authorized to review such complaints for relief and submit
findings and recommendations to the district judge.
filed his initial complaint on January 11, 2018, against
Aiken County, State of South Carolina, Social Security,
Department of Mental Health, The Palmetto State, Doctor C.L.,
Aiken Public Safety, and Aiken Detention Center. [ECF No. 1].
On March 16, 2018, the undersigned filed a report and
recommendation recommending Plaintiff's complaint be
summarily dismissed. [ECF No. 16]. The undersigned's
recommendation was based on Plaintiff's failure to plead
sufficient allegations to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted. Id. On July 20, 23, and 30, 2018,
and October 2, 2018, Plaintiff filed motions to amend or
correct his complaint. [ECF Nos. 24, 25, 27, and 30]. On
October 9, 2018, the Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis, United
States District Judge, granted Plaintiff's motions to
amend, vacated the March 16, 2018 report and recommendation,
and remanded the case to the undersigned for further
consideration of Plaintiff's claims. [ECF No. 31].
October 9, 2018, the undersigned entered an order directing
Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by October 31, 2018.
[ECF No. 33]. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October
24, 2018. [ECF No. 39].
statement of claim section of his amended complaint,
My claims are that I have been racially profiled repeatedly
since 7-14-95 and I just got profiled by Officer Wise and his
boss of Aiken Public Safety and by Aiken Sheriff's and
Aiken Regional Hospital and Aurora Pavilion
[ECF No. 39 at 5]. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages.
Standard of Review
filed his amended complaint 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. To protect against
possible abuses of this privilege, the statute allows a
district court to dismiss a case upon a finding that the
action fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted
or is frivolous or malicious. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii). A finding of frivolity can be made
where the complaint lacks an arguable basis either in law or
in fact. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31
(1992). A claim based on a meritless legal theory may be
dismissed sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).
complaints are held to a less stringent standard than those
drafted by attorneys. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d
1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). A federal court is charged with
liberally construing a complaint filed by a pro se litigant
to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case.
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). In
evaluating a pro se complaint, the plaintiff's
allegations are assumed to be true. Fine v. City of
N.Y., 529 F.2d 70, 74 (2d Cir. 1975). 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 the plaintiff could prevail, it should
do so. Nevertheless, the requirement of liberal construction
does not mean that the court can ...