United States District Court, D. South Carolina
ORDER REGARDING AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT
PAIGE
J. GOSSET, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The
plaintiff, Micheal Wayne Perritt, a self-represented state
pretrial detainee, brings this civil rights action. The
Complaint has been filed pursuant to 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 finds this action is subject to
summary dismissal if Plaintiff does not amend the Complaint
to cure the deficiencies identified herein.
1.
Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff, an inmate in the J. Reuben Long Detention Center
in Conway, South Carolina, indicates that he slipped and
injured a bone in his left foot in January 2019. (Compl., ECF
No. 1 at 2, 6-7.) He claims that despite his numerous
requests for medical attention, the jail medical department
run by Mediko did not x-ray his foot until six to seven weeks
after the fall. (Id. at 8.) The medical staff
determined that Plaintiff's bone was cracked, but
Plaintiff was later taken to an outside doctor who determined
that the bone was broken. (Id.) The outside doctor
also determined that because the break went untreated, it had
already started to heal, causing permanent damage.
(Id.) Plaintiff now brings this action for damages
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a violation of the
Eighth Amendment. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff names the J.
Reuben Long Detention Center and Mediko as defendants in the
caption of the Complaint. (Id. at 1.) However,
Plaintiff also lists “Mediko (Nurses)” as a named
defendant in the body of the Complaint. (Id. at 3.)
II.
Discussion
A.
Standard of Review
Under
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).
In
order to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the
plaintiff must do more than make mere conclusory statements
to state a claim. 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.
This
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
actions”).
B.
Analysis
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 (1988).
However,
Defendant J. Reuben Long Detention Center is not a
“person” amenable to suit under § 1983
because it is an inanimate facility and not a person. It is
well-settled that only “persons” may act under
color of state law; therefore, a defendant in a § 1983
action must qualify as a “person.” See
42 U.S.C. § 1983; Monell v. Dep't of Soc.
Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978) (noting that for
purposes of § 1983 a “person” includes
individuals and “bodies politic and corporate”).
Courts have held that inanimate objects such as buildings,
facilities, and grounds are not “persons” and do
not act under color of state law. See Nelson v. Lexington
Cty. Det. Ctr., C/A No. 8:10-2988-JMC, 2011 WL 2066551,
at *1 (D.S.C. May 26, 2011) (finding that the plaintiff
failed to establish that the Lexington County Detention
Center, “as a building and not a person, is amenable to
suit under § 1983”); see also Brooks v.
Pembroke City Jail, 722 F.Supp. 1294, 1301 (E.D. N.C.
1989) (“Claims under § 1983 are directed at
‘persons' and the jail is not a person amenable to
suit.”). Because the J. Reuben Long Detention Center is
not an individual or corporate body amenable to suit under
§ 1983, this defendant is subject to summary dismissal
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.[1]
Also,
to the extent Plaintiff intends to name the company Mediko as
a defendant, Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim
against Mediko upon which relief can be granted. Usually, a
private company that provides medical services to a
publicly-run prison or jail is a state actor under §
1983. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 54 (1988)
(holding a physician employed by a state to provide medical
services to state prison inmates was a state actor for §
1983 purposes when he treated prisoners' injuries). But,
to hold a private company (rather than an individual who
works for that company) liable under § 1983, a Plaintiff
must plead and show that an official policy or custom of the
company caused the alleged deprivation of a federal right.
See Austin v. Paramount Parks, Inc., 195 F.3d 715,
728 (4th Cir. 1999) (“[A] private corporation is liable
under § 1983 only when an official policy or custom of
the corporation causes the alleged deprivation of federal
rights.”). Here, Plaintiff provides no facts plausibly
showing that the injury to his foot from the purported lack
of adequate medical treatment was caused by an official
policy or custom of Mediko. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678;
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. Accordingly, Plaintiffs
claim against Mediko as currently pled is subject to summary
dismissal.
Consequently,
Plaintiffs Complaint is subject to summary dismissal pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(1)
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 an amended
complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 15(a) that corrects the deficiencies identified
above.[2] If Plaintiff fails to file an amended
complaint ...