United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division
ORDER REGARDING AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT
J. GOSSET UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
plaintiff, Indigo Ocean Rose Kraim, proceeding pro se, brings
this civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
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.). Previously,
the court summarily dismissed this case without prejudice for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (ECF Nos. 12 & 15.)
Plaintiff appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction because Plaintiff did not seek to appeal a final
order, or an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
(ECF No. 40.) The Fourth Circuit remanded the case with
instructions to allow Plaintiff to file an amended complaint.
(Id.) Plaintiff has now filed an Amended Complaint.
(ECF No. 47.) Having reviewed the Amended Complaint in
accordance with applicable law, the court finds this action
is subject to summary dismissal if Plaintiff does not amend
the Amended Complaint to cure the deficiencies identified
Factual and Procedural Background
indicates that the Columbia Police Department failed to
“serve and protect, ” which resulted in
“false ejectment, slander, defamation of
[Plaintiff's] character, constant harassment, excessive
use of force resulting in extreme harassment, false
imprisonment, loss of vehicle and wages, [and] severe mental
anguish.” (Am. Compl., ECF No. 47 at 1-2.) Plaintiff
claims that on “several occasions, ” the Columbia
Police “did not respect” Plaintiff's rights.
(Id.) Plaintiff also claims that “the tort in
this matter also includes . . . aiding and assisting the
Columbia Housing Authority, ” a Second Amendment
violation, and “false hearsay.” (Id. at
2.) Plaintiff further claims the Columbia Police
“stalked and harassed” Plaintiff for over one
year, and Plaintiff has “faced homelessness, severe
starvation, rape, [and] assault and battery.”
(Id. at 3.) Plaintiff indicates the Columbia Police
were aware of Plaintiff's post-traumatic stress disorder
and ignored Plaintiff's “calls for help, resulting
in severe abuse, embarrassment.” (Id. at 4.)
Plaintiff also indicates that she feels like she is being
targeted when she sees a police officer, the officers are
trying to kill Plaintiff, and that they have been
“targeting” Plaintiff for over eighteen years.
Standard of Review
established local procedure in this judicial district, a
careful review has been made of the pro se Amended Complaint.
The Amended 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
Amended Complaint does not directly state a recognizable
legal cause of action. However, Plaintiff does use words
indicating she may seek to bring a civil rights and tort
action against the named defendants. Thus, in accordance with
the court's duty to liberally construe pro se complaints,
the court construes its as asserting a cause of action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unspecified
constitutional violations. A legal 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
Plaintiff fails to provide any facts that would plausibly
show the defendants violated Plaintiff's rights.
Plaintiff's claims that the Columbia police stalked and
harassed Plaintiff or failed to protect and serve Plaintiff,
without more, fails to show that the named defendant caused
Plaintiff's constitutional rights to be violated, or
caused Plaintiff injury. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 (requiring that a
pleading contain “a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”);
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (stating Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 8 does not require detailed factual
allegations, but it requires more than a plain accusation
that the defendant unlawfully harmed the plaintiff, devoid of
factual support). Even after reading Plaintiff's original
complaint and the Amended Complaint, the court cannot discern
the basic facts that comprise Plaintiff's claims here.
Plaintiff fails to provide any facts about what the
defendants did, how that affected Plaintiff's rights, and
what happened to Plaintiff as a result.
Plaintiff's Complaint is subject to summary dismissal
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(ii)(B)(2) for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff is
hereby granted twenty-one (21) days from the date this order
is entered (plus three days for mail time) to file a second
amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
15(a) that corrects the deficiencies identified
above. In a contemporaneously issued order, the
court has provided Plaintiff with instructions to bring this
case into proper form for initial review and the issuance and
service of process. In that order are instructions to fill
out the standard pro se prisoner complaint form attached to
the order. Plaintiff should use the complaint form attached
to that order to correct the deficiencies ...