Burris v. North Charleston Police Department et al
ORDER denying 63 Motion for Issuance of Subpoena; denying 66 Motion to Compel; granting 73 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 67 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Response to Motion due by 3/27/2014.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 12/12/2013.(abuc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Shawn Justin Burris,
Det. Ware; Det. Sturkie; Det. Terry;
PTL Scott Micheal Thomes; Thomas
Eugene Bennett; SGT Darin Cobb,
C/A No.: 2:13-699-GRA-SVH
Shawn Justin Burris (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional
rights associated with his arrests and criminal prosecutions in state court.
Det. Ware, Det. Sturkie, Det. Terry, PTL Scott Micheal Thomes, Thomas Eugene
Bennett, and SGT Darin Cobb (collectively “Defendants”) are detectives or police
officers employed by the North Charleston Police Department (“NCPD”). All pretrial
proceedings in this case were referred to the undersigned pursuant to the provisions of 28
U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(f) (D.S.C.).
This matter comes before the court on the following motions: (1) Plaintiff’s
motion for subpoenas [Entry #63]; (2) Plaintiff’s motion to compel [Entry #66]; and (3)
Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time [Entry #73].
Plaintiff asserts causes of action for malicious prosecution, excessive force, false
arrest, false imprisonment, defamation, slander, and negligence against Defendants
[Entry #11-1 at 2]. Plaintiff alleges that detectives Terry and Ware threatened him with
arrest in 2009, after he reported a vehicle had been stolen. Id. at 4. Although he was not
arrested in 2009, Plaintiff claims Ware condemned his residence for lack of running
water in late 2010 or early 2011, and he believes Ware had “a vendetta or grudge” against
him. Id. at 4–5. Plaintiff claims that between March 17, 2011, and June 29, 2011, he
“was arrested 3 different times on 4 different felonies carrying a possible sentence of 30
plus years.” Id. at 5.
Plaintiff alleges that an officer used excessive force on him on March 17, 2011,
during his arrest for property crime enhancement and malicious damage to property. Id.
at 5–6. Plaintiff claims he suffered two broken teeth and a dislocated shoulder that still
requires medical treatment. Id. at 6, 15. Plaintiff was also charged with marijuana
possession on March 17, 2011, but the charge did not survive a preliminary hearing due
to lack of prosecution. Id. at 6.
Plaintiff’s next arrest occurred on May 13, 2011, for third-degree criminal sexual
conduct (“CSC”). Id. Plaintiff alleges that the detectives named in this action helped
prosecute the CSC case with malicious intent, and he claims they presented false
evidence to procure a search warrant “to look for evidence of other crimes of which
[Plaintiff] was never charged.” Id. at 8. Plaintiff claims that the CSC charge caused
embarrassment, the loss of his career, defamation, and the loss of his home and all his
possessions. Id. at 10.
Plaintiff claims Det. Terry and Det. Sturkie participated in his subsequent arrest
for property crime enhancement/possession or receiving stolen goods and in the
prosecution of these charges. Id. Plaintiff claims that he entered a guilty plea to the
receiving stolen goods charge under duress and received a sentence of thirty days,
suspended upon time served. Id. at 13. Id. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. Id. at 17.
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 5, 2013, identifying the arresting
officer for the March 17, 2011 case as PTL Scott Micheal Thomes. [Entry #11 at 1].
Plaintiff further added as defendants the reporting officers from the CSC case, Thomas
Eugene Bennett and SGT Darin Cobb. Id.
Plaintiff’s motion for subpoenas
Plaintiff previously submitted three motions for subpoenas requesting 20 subpoena
forms to secure witnesses’ attendance at trial and 15 forms to secure documents. [Entry
#43, #50, #55]. By order dated September 29, 2013, the undersigned denied Plaintiff’s
order without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to show the ability to tender the required
fees or provide any information regarding who he planned to subpoena or why they may
have relevant information. [Entry #60]. In his instant motion for subpoenas [Entry #63],
Plaintiff lists who he seeks to subpoena for depositions and for documents. However,
Plaintiff has failed to show that he can tender the necessary witness fees, costs of copying
documents, and payment of a court reporter. Therefore, Plaintiff’s instant motion for
subpoenas must also be denied without prejudice.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel
In his motion to compel, Plaintiff seeks an order compelling the Legal Affairs
Department of the North Charleston Building Department (“NCBD”) to more fully
respond to a Freedom of Information Act Request initially sent by Plaintiff’s counsel in
his state-court action. A motion to compel in the instant case is not the proper method for
obtaining such information for Plaintiff’s underlying state case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37.
Because the NCBD is not a party to this case or a non-party under a proper subpoena, the
undersigned does not have jurisdiction over NCBD for the purposes of this action.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to compel [Entry #66] is denied.
Plaintiff’s motion for an extension
Plaintiff has moved for a 90-day extension of time in which to respond to
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s motion is granted. Plaintiff must
respond to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment by March 27, 2014.
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned denies Plaintiff’s motion for subpoenas
[Entry #63] and Plaintiff’s motion to compel [Entry #66]. Plaintiff’s motion for a 90-day
extension of time in which to respond to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment
[Entry #73] is granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
December 12, 2013
Columbia, South Carolina
Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge
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?