United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
GORDON BAKER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
a civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff John
Wilson is a pretrial detainee representing himself.
Therefore, in the event that a limitations issue arises,
Wilson shall have the benefit of the prison-mailroom rule.
See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). Generally,
Wilson alleges claims arising from his assault of a security
guard and resulting indictment and detention. Under Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), the assigned United States
Magistrate Judge is authorized to review the complaint and to
submit a recommendation to the United States District Judge.
For the following reasons, the undersigned recommends that
this action be dismissed, without prejudice and without
issuance or service of process.
alleges that on May 18, 2018, he was at the Spartanburg
County Regional Hospital for an overdose. (Dkt. No. 1 at 5.)
He alleges “a case of malpractice happened” when
staff at the Spartanburg Regional Medical Center gave him an
injection that caused him to black out. (Id.) Wilson
asserts he was told that, while he was blacked out, he
tackled a security guard. (Id.) For that, he was
arrested and then charged with assault and battery and with
threatening a public official. (Id.) He has since
been at the Spartanburg County Jail, and he claims the police
have been treating him cruelly there. (Id. at 4, 6.)
Wilson contends this amounts to unlawful discrimination,
cruel and unusual punishment, malpractice, defamation of
character, and false imprisonment. (Id. at 4, 6.) He
is suing the Hospital and the Jail. (Id. at 2, 3.)
filed this action on April 14, 2019. Because Wilson constitutes a
prisoner under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, and because
he is proceeding in forma pauperis, the undersigned
screened his complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e) and 1915A(a). On May 2, the undersigned
issued an order notifying Wilson that his complaint was
subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim and that he
had not provided documents required for the Court to order
issuance and service of process. (Dkt. No. 6.) The
undersigned gave Wilson an opportunity to file an amended
complaint and to provide the missing service documents.
(Id.) The Clerk of Court provided Wilson forms to
complete those tasks. His deadline was May 27. (Id.)
11, Wilson sent the Court a letter saying that he was unable
to complete the forms and therefore would be contacting a
lawyer to assist him. (Dkt. No. 10.) Since then, the Court
has not received anything else from Wilson, and no lawyer has
appeared on his behalf.
discussed below, this case should be dismissed for failure to
prosecute and failure to comply with a court order.
Alternatively, the case should be dismissed because the
complaint fails to state any facially plausible claims for
Failure to Prosecute and to Comply with Court Order
May 2 order, the undersigned warned Wilson that, if he did
not timely submit service documents, his case would be
subject to dismissal for failure to prosecute and for failure
to comply with a court order. (Dkt. No. 6 at 3.) Although
Wilson indicated he would be obtaining a lawyer, he did so
well in advance of his deadline. Moreover, he did not seek an
extension of his deadline while he found an attorney who
would take his case. The deadline expired more than a week
ago, and nothing in the record suggests that Wilson will soon
either try completing the forms again himself or have an
attorney bring his case into compliance. Thus, it appears the
case should be dismissed under Rule 41, without prejudice,
for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the
Failure to State a Claim
Court is required to screen prisoner complaints seeking
redress from governmental entities, officers, or employees.
See § 1915A. The Court must dismiss any
complaints, or portions of complaints, that are frivolous or
malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief. § 1915A(b). Those same criteria
are grounds for dismissing a case filed by someone proceeding
in forma pauperis. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
failure to state a claim, a complaint filed in federal court
“must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). When a court analyzes a complaint
for facial plausibility, it must accept the factual
allegations as true. Id. The court need not,
however, accept as true the complaint's legal
conclusions. Id. When “it is clear that no
relief could be granted under any set of ...