Ellerbe v. Cook et al
Filing
27
ORDER denying Plaintiff's 21 motion to amend to the extent he seeks to name SCDC as a defendant in this case, but otherwise granting the motion, denying Plaintiff's 24 motion to be transferred and denying 26 m otion for discovery. To the extent Plaintiff seeks to serve on defense counsel the discovery requests he submitted to the court, discovery is to be completed no later than October 20, 2020. Any discovery requests must be served at least 30 days before the deadline. (Discovery due by 10/20/2020) Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges on 8/31/2020. (lbak)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Craig E. Ellerbe, Jr.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Lieutenant Larry Cook,
Corrections Officer Raycharm J.
Burkett, Corrections Officer
Thomas M. Pattman, Corrections
Officer Micquel X. Cleveland,
Corrections Officer James E.
Henderson, II, Corrections Officer
Martin A. Delk, and Warden
Michael Stephan, each in their
individual and official capacities,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C/A No.: 1:20-1630-BHH-SVH
ORDER
Craig E. Ellerbe, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and South Carolina
law, alleging violations of his rights while an inmate at the Broad River
Correctional Institution of the South Carolina Department of Corrections
(“SCDC”) against above-named defendants (“Defendants”).
This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff’s motion to amend his
complaint. [ECF No. 21]. 1 Plaintiff’s motion having been fully briefed [ECF
Nos. 23, 25], it is ripe for disposition. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
As discussed more below, also before the court are Plaintiff’s motions to be
transferred and for discovery. [ECF Nos. 24, 26].
1
§ 636(b)(1)(B), and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.), this case has been
assigned to the undersigned for all pretrial proceedings.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) allows a party to amend a pleading with leave of
court and further states “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so
requires.” “A motion to amend should be denied only when the amendment
would be prejudicial to the opposing party, there has been bad faith on the
part of the moving party, or the amendment would be futile.” HCMF Corp. v.
Allen, 238 F.3d 273, 276 (4th Cir. 2001) (citations and emphasis omitted).
Defendants note Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint “is essentially
the same as Plaintiff’s original Complaint, aside from formatting changes and
additional details added to his factual allegations,” but that the proposed
amended complaint also seeks to add SCDC as a defendant. [ECF No. 23 at
1–2 (citing ECF No. 21-1)]. Defendants argue that because SCDC is entitled
to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court, Plaintiff’s
motion to amend should be denied as futile. Id.
The Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from entertaining an
action against a state. See, e.g., Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978)
(per curiam) (citations omitted); Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 10–11 (1890).
Further, Eleventh Amendment immunity “extends to arm[s] of the State,
including state agencies and state officers acting in their official capacity,”
Cromer v. Brown, 88 F.3d 1315, 1332 (4th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted),
2
because “a suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is not a
suit against the official but rather is a suit against the official’s office . . .
[and] is no different from a suit against the State itself,” Will v. Mich. Dep’t of
State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989) (citations omitted). “As a state agency,
SCDC is an arm of the State of South Carolina.” Abebe v. S.C. Dep’t of Corr.,
C/A No. 0:09-3111-MBS-PJ, 2010 WL 2991595, at *2 (D.S.C. July 2, 2010),
adopted in part, C/A No. 0:09-3111-MBS, 2010 WL 3258595 (D.S.C. Aug. 16,
2010). “As such, the Eleventh Amendment protects SCDC from suit whether
money damages or injunctive relief is sought.” Id. (citing Alabama, 438 U.S.
at 782); see also Simpson v. S.C. Dep’t of Corr., C/A No. 2:19-2245-RMGMGB, 2020 WL 1822176, at *3 (D.S.C. Jan. 16, 2020), report and
recommendation adopted, C/A No. 2:19-2245-RMG, 2020 WL 582321 (D.S.C.
Feb. 6, 2020) (“In other words, as a state agency, SCDC retains its immunity
under the Eleventh Amendment, regardless of the type of relief sought.”).
Plaintiff does not appear to dispute that SCDC is immune from suit in
federal court for claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but instead
argues that SCDC is liable for the acts of its employees under the South
Carolina Tort Claims Act (“SCTCA”). [See ECF No. 25 at 1].
However, as provided by the SCTCA, “[n]othing in this chapter is
construed as a waiver of the state’s or political subdivision’s immunity from
suit in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of
3
the United States nor as consent to be sued in any state court beyond the
boundaries of the State of South Carolina.” See S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-20(e);
see also Stewart v. Beaufort County, 481 F. Supp. 2d 483, 493 (D.S.C. 2007);
Pringle v. SC Ret. Sys., C/A No. 2:06-3294-PMD, 2007 WL 295626, at *5
(D.S.C. Jan. 29, 2007). Here, because the circuit courts of South Carolina
have exclusive jurisdiction over state-law claims against governmental
entities pursuant to the SCTCA, see S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-100(b), and
because Plaintiff has brought suit in federal court, SCDC retains its
immunity under the Eleventh Amendment for claims brought pursuant to the
SCTCA. See, e.g, Lyles v. Sterling, C/A No. 9:17-149-CMC, 2018 WL 1737091,
at *4 (D.S.C. Apr. 11, 2018), aff’d, 735 F. App’x 97 (4th Cir. 2018) (“Because
Eleventh Amendment immunity has not been abrogated in this federal court,
Plaintiff must sue the SCDOC [for violations of the SCTCA] in state court.”).
Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint to add
SCDC as a defendant, such amendment would be futile, and his motion is
denied in this respect. To the extent Plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint
otherwise, his motion is granted.
Additionally, Plaintiff has filed a motion to be transferred to another
facility. Plaintiff argues the officers where he is currently incarcerated, Perry
Correctional Institution, have sexually assaulted him and are actively
preventing his access to the courts by not providing him access to the law
4
library, lawbooks, or supplies and by going “through my legal work without
me there and just tak[ing] what they want.” [ECF No. 24]. Defendants did
not respond to Plaintiff’s motion.
“Only in extreme situations . . . would a federal court have the
authority to order a State to transfer a prisoner . . . .” Moore v. Tillman, C/A
No. 3:07-3209-RBH, 2008 WL 4442593, at *9 (D.S.C. Sept. 25, 2008), aff’d,
329 F. App’x 460 (4th Cir. 2009) (collecting cases). Although Plaintiff has
alleged an extreme situation, his allegations are wholly unrelated to the
allegations that form the basis of his instant suit and concern a separate
facility. Plaintiff has failed to submit any evidence in support of his
allegations, has not sworn as to the veracity of his allegations under penalty
of perjury, nor has indicated he properly brought this claim to the attention
of the institution in which he resides, stating only, without elaboration, that
the “wardens here don’t care” and “have been informed of these issues.” [ECF
No. 24]. Without more, the court is unable to grant Plaintiff’s motion to
transfer.
Next, Plaintiff filed a motion for discovery. [ECF No. 26]. However,
Plaintiff fails to indicate he served this discovery on defense counsel as
required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 and 34 and has instead submitted the
discovery requests to the court. Additionally, the deadline for discovery
expired during the pendency of Plaintiff’s motion. Therefore, the court
5
provides Plaintiff with an additional 60 days from the date of this order to
complete discovery to the extent he still seeks to serve on defense counsel the
discovery he submitted to the court.
In sum, the undersigned denies Plaintiff’s motion to amend to the
extent he seeks to name SCDC as a defendant in this action, but otherwise
grants Plaintiff’s motion. [ECF No. 21]. The Clerk is directed to separately
docket the amended complaint. [See ECF No. 21-1]. Additionally, the
undersigned denies Plaintiff’s motions to be transferred and for discovery.
[ECF Nos. 24, 26]. To the extent Plaintiff seeks to serve on defense counsel
the discovery requests he submitted to the court, discovery is to be completed
no later than October 20, 2020. Any discovery requests must be served at
least 30 days before the deadline.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
August 21, 2020
Columbia, South Carolina
Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?