United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division
ORDER REGARDING AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT
J. GOSSETT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
plaintiff, Soloman Jackson, proceeding pro se,
brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. The Complaint has been filed 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.). 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 Plaintiff
indicates he brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 for violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment
rights. (Compl., ECF No. 1 at 1.) Plaintiff alleges that on
October 21, 2017, Defendant Nathaniel Maxwell, a law
enforcement officer, lied on a traffic accident report by
faulting Plaintiff for the accident. (Id. at 2.)
Plaintiff claims that the other defendants failed to
supervise or train Maxwell, or failed to prevent his conduct,
and that Maxwell's conduct was carried out under the
policies and procedures of Defendant Everick Patterson.
(Id. at 3.) Plaintiff seeks damages and an
injunction to stop the purported unconstitutional conduct.
(Id. at 4.)
Standard of Review
established local procedure in this judicial district, a
careful review has been made of the pro se
Complaint. 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. 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.
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
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).
Plaintiff claims he brings this action pursuant to the Fourth
and Fourteenth Amendments, Plaintiff does not explain which
constitutional provision he claims was violated.
Plaintiff's Complaint is so lacking in factual
allegations that the court cannot determine what cause of
action he intends to raise. 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). Plaintiff's bare
allegation that one of the defendants lied on a traffic
accident report fails to provide facts that would plausibly
show that the defendants violated his constitutional rights.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Twombly, 550 U.S.
Plaintiff's Complaint is subject to summary dismissal
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) 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. 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
complaint form attached to the order. Plaintiff should use
the complaint form attached to that order to correct the
deficiencies identified here. If Plaintiff fails to file an
amended complaint that corrects those deficiencies, this
action will be recommended for summary dismissal pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915.
IS SO ORDERED.
INFORMATION . . . PLEASE READ CAREFULLY WARNING TO PRO SE