United States District Court, D. South Carolina
ORDER AND NOTICE
V. Hodges United States Magistrate Judge
Antonio Holmes (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se
and in forma pauperis, filed this complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of civil rights
against Defendant Aiken County Detention Center
(“Detention Center”). Pursuant to the provisions
of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. Rule
73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.), the undersigned is authorized to
review such complaints for relief and submit findings and
recommendations to the district judge.
Factual and Procedural Background
is a pretrial detainee incarcerated at Detention Center. [ECF
No. 1 at 2, 4]. Plaintiff alleges that on August 21, 2019, he
was placed in a cell with three other inmates and only two
beds. Id. at 5, 6, 7, 8. He claims the cell had a
non-operational emergency intercom and mold growing from its
walls. Id. Plaintiff complains of access to only two
working showers with mold growing from their walls.
Id. at 6, 7, 8. He indicates Detention Center serves
food that is cold and meat that is not fit for human
alleges he has verbally requested transfer from his cell,
complained of conditions to Detention Center's employees,
and filed grievances through Detention Center's kiosks.
Id. at 5, 8, 9. He states conditions have failed to
improve despite his complaints. Id.
states Defendant has violated “my Living Constitution
As well As my Inmate Rights.” Id. at 4. He
requests no specific relief. See Id. at 6.
Standard of Review
filed his complaint 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. To protect against possible
abuses of this privilege, the statute allows a district court
to dismiss a case upon a finding that the action fails to
state a claim on which relief may be granted or is frivolous
or malicious. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii). A
finding of frivolity can be made where the complaint lacks an
arguable basis either in law or in fact. Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). A claim based on a
meritless legal theory may be dismissed sua sponte under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). See Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).
complaints are held to a less stringent standard than those
drafted by attorneys. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d
1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). A federal court is charged with
liberally construing a complaint filed by a pro se litigant
to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case.
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). In
evaluating a pro se complaint, the plaintiff's
allegations are assumed to be true. Fine v. City of
N.Y., 529 F.2d 70, 74 (2d Cir. 1975). The mandated
liberal construction afforded to pro se pleadings means that
if the court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a
valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, it should
do so. Nevertheless, the requirement of liberal construction
does not mean that the court can ignore a clear failure in
the pleading to allege facts that set forth a claim currently
cognizable in a federal district court. Weller v.
Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 390-91 (4th Cir.
Failure to Sign Complaint
has failed to sign the complaint. See EFC No. 1 at
12. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(a), “[e]very pleading,
written motion, and other paper must be signed . . . by a
party personally if the party is unrepresented . . . . The
court must strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is
promptly corrected after being called to the . . .
party's attention.” Therefore, ...