Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Noe v. South Carolina Department of Corrections

United States District Court, D. South Carolina

January 30, 2019

Cody Allen Noe, Plaintiff,
v.
South Carolina Department of Corrections, Officer Hines, Sergeant Williams Defendants.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          Jacquelyn D. Austin, United States Magistrate Judge

         This matter is before the Court on a motion by Plaintiff under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 for a preliminary injunction. [Doc. 118.] Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C., this magistrate judge is authorized to review all pretrial matters in cases filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and to submit findings and recommendations to the District Court.

         Plaintiff filed this pro se action on January 24, 2018.[1] [Doc. 1.] He filed a motion for preliminary injunction on January 10, 2019. [Doc. 118.] Defendants filed a response on January 23, 2019. [Doc.119.]

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff is an inmate incarcerated in the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC). He alleges he was the victim of an incident of excessive force on June 28 or 29, 2017, at Broad River Correctional Institution, where he was incarcerated. [Docs. 1 at 5; 24.] His complaint requests money damages. [Id. at 6.]

         In his motion for preliminary injunction, Plaintiff “[r]equest[s] that [h]e be placed on (STATEWIDE PROTECTIVE CUSTODY).” [Doc. 118 at 1.] He claims that a gang “has put a [h]it out on him and wishes him [d]ead.” [Id.] He alleges he is currently “[i]n a Restricted Housing Unit (RHU) on Protective Custody.” [Id.] He contends that being put on statewide protective custody would be less restrictive. [Id.]

         APPLICABLE LAW

         Requirements for a Cause of Action Under § 1983

         Section 1983 provides a private cause of action for plaintiffs alleging constitutional violations by persons acting under color of state law. Section 1983 provides, in relevant part,

[e]very person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or any person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . . .

42 U.S.C. § 1983. To establish a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must prove two elements: (1) that the defendant “deprived [him] of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States” and (2) that the defendant “deprived [him] of this constitutional right under color of [State] statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage.” Mentavlos v. Anderson, 249 F.3d 301, 310 (4th Cir. 2001) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

         The under-color-of-state-law element, which is equivalent to the “state action” requirement under the Fourteenth Amendment,

reflects judicial recognition of the fact that most rights secured by the Constitution are protected only against infringement by governments. This fundamental limitation on the scope of constitutional guarantees preserves an area of individual freedom by limiting the reach of federal law and avoids imposing on the State, its agencies or officials, responsibility for conduct for which they cannot fairly be blamed.

Id. at 310 (quoting Dowe v. Total Action Against Poverty in Roanoke Valley, 145 F.3d 653, 658 (4th Cir. 1998)) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Nevertheless, “the deed of an ostensibly private organization or individual” may at times be treated “as if a State has caused it to be performed.” Brentwood Acad. v. Tenn. Secondary Sch. AthleticAss'n, 531 U.S. 288, 295 (2001). Specifically, “state action may be found if, though only if, there is such a ‘close nexus between the State and the challenged action' that seemingly private behavior ‘may be fairly treated as that of the State itself.'” Id. (quoting Jackson v. Metro. Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 351 (1974)). State action requires both an alleged constitutional deprivation “caused by the exercise of some right or privilege created by the State or by a rule of conduct imposed by the State or by a person for whom the State is responsible, ” and that “the party charged with the deprivation must be a person who may fairly be said to be a state actor.” Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 937 (1982). A determination of whether a private party's allegedly ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.