United States District Court, D. South Carolina
ORDER REGARDING AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT
J. GOSSETT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
plaintiff, Hugh Jones, a self-represented federal prisoner,
brings this civil rights and personal injury action. The
Complaint has been filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 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.
Factual and Procedural Background
an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution in Estill,
South Carolina, indicates that he injured his wrist while
exercising in the prison. (Compl., ECF No. 1 at 3.)
Initially, Plaintiff did not seek medical treatment, but due
to increased pain and inability to use his hand, Plaintiff
reported his injury to medical staff on April 18, 2019.
(Id.) Plaintiff claims that the nurse, Jade Lloyd,
falsely noted on Plaintiff's medical file that he had no
swelling, inflammation, or “clicking and
popping.” (Id.) On May 16 and 22, 2017,
Plaintiff was then seen by a doctor, D. Garcia, but the
doctor falsely noted that Plaintiff “denied injury,
” “denied falling, ” and failed to show any
concern or interest in Plaintiff's injury. (Id.
at 4.) Plaintiff claims the actions of the nurse and doctor
show “a concerted effort” to deny Plaintiff
medical care, or to save money. (Id. at 5.)
Plaintiff claims that as a result, he has not recovered from
his injury. (Id. at 8.) He expressly raises claims
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deliberate indifference
to medical needs, and the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.
§§ 2671-2680, 1346(b) for negligence, and he seeks
damages. (Id. at 2-3, 8.)
Standard of Review
established local procedure in this judicial district, a
careful review has been made of the pro se Complaint pursuant
to the procedural provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and
the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), Pub.
L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996), 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 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. §
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.
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
raises two claims here, both of which are subject to summary
dismissal as pled. First, Plaintiff raises a claim pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deliberate indifference to
medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Second,
Plaintiff raises a claim of negligence pursuant to the
Federal Tort Claims Act.
U.S.C. § 1983
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).
Here, the United States is not amenable to suit pursuant to
§ 1983 because it does not act under color of state law.
Hindes v. F.D.I.C., 137 F.3d 148, 159 (3d Cir.
1998); but see Bivens v. Six Unkown Agents of Federal
Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (establishing a
remedy for plaintiffs alleging certain constitutional
violations by federal officials to obtain ...