Brown et al v. Lexington County, South Carolina et al

Filing 84

ORDER declining to adopt 74 Report and Recommendation; denying Plaintiffs' 21 Motion to Certify Class; denying Defendants' 29 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to declaratory and injunctive relief; and denying Defendants' 50 Motion for Summary Judgment. This matter is recommitted to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial handling. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 3/29/2018. (mwal)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Twanda Marshinda Brown; Sasha Monique Darby;
Cayeshia Cashel Johnson; Amy Marie Palacios;
Nora Ann Corder; Xavier Larry Goodwin; and
Raymond Wright, Jr., on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated,

)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
)
vs.
)
)
Lexington County, South Carolina; Gary Reinhart, in
)
his individual capacity; Rebecca Adams, in her official
)
and individual capacities as the Chief Judge for
)
Administrative Purposes of the Summary Courts in
)
Lexington County and in her official capacity as the Judge )
of the Irmo Magistrate Court; Albert John Dooley, III, in )
his official capacity as the Associate Chief Judge for
)
Administrative Purposes of the Summary Courts in
)
Lexington County; Bryan Koon, in his official capacity as )
the Lexington County Sheriff; and Robert Madsen, in his )
official capacity as the Circuit Public Defender for the
)
Eleventh Judicial Circuit of South Carolina,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________________________)

C/A No. 3:17-cv-1426-MBS

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiffs Twanda Marshinda Brown; Sasha Monique Darby; Cayeshia Cashel Johnson;
Amy Marie Palacios; Nora Ann Corder; Xavier Larry Goodwin; and Raymond Wright, Jr.
(hereinafter collectively “Plaintiffs”), brought the underlying action against Defendant Lexington
County of South Carolina (hereinafter “Lexington County”); Defendants Gary Reinhart,1 Rebecca

1

Defendant Gary Reinhart served as the Chief Judge for Administrative Purposes of the Summary Courts in Lexington
County from 2004 through June 27, 2017. Second Amended Compl. ¶ 27. Defendant Gary Reinhart is currently a
Magistrate Judge for Lexington County, South Carolina. Id.

1

Adams,2 and Albert John Dooley, III,3 as former or current Judges for Administrative Purposes of
the Summary Courts in Lexington County and the Irmo Magistrate Court (hereinafter “Judicial
Defendants”); Defendant Bryan Koon as the Lexington County Sheriff (hereinafter “Koon”);4 and
Defendant Robert Madsen as the Circuit Public Defender for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of South
Carolina (hereinafter “Madsen”) (hereinafter collectively “Defendants”).5 Plaintiffs allege
violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and of their constitutional rights under the Fourth, Sixth, and
Fourteenth Amendments because they were denied the opportunity to have counsel appointed or
otherwise informed of their rights. Plaintiffs seek class certification, damages, and declaratory and
injunctive relief against Defendants.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was
referred to the United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges for pretrial handling. This matter
is now before the court on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation filed on February
5, 2018, recommending that the court: (1) deny Plaintiffs’ motion to certify class, ECF No. 21; (2)
grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to declaratory and injunctive relief, ECF No.
29; (3) deny Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiffs’ damages claims against
Lexington County for failure to afford counsel and grant the motion as to all other claims, ECF
No. 50.

2

Defendant Rebecca Adams served as the Associate Chief Judge for Administrative Purposes of the Summary Courts
in Lexington County, South Carolina from December 20, 2013 to June 27, 2017. Second Amended Compl. ¶ 28.
Defendant Adams currently serves as the Chief Judge for Administrative Purposes of the Summary Courts in
Lexington County and as the Judge of the Irmo Magistrate Court. Id. ¶¶ 28-29.
3
Defendant Albert John Dooley, III currently serves as the Associate Chief Judge for Administrative Purposes of the
Summary Courts in Lexington County, South Carolina. Second Amended Compl. Id. ¶ 30.
4
Defendant Bryan Koon serves as the elected Lexington County Sheriff; the Chief Law Enforcement Office of the
Lexington County Sheriff Department; and the Chief Administrator of the Detention Center. Second Amended Compl.
¶ 31.
5
Defendant Robert Madsen, is the Circuit Public Defender for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in South Carolina that
includes Lexington County. Second Amended Compl. ¶ 32.

2

I.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs separately were arrested and incarcerated for a period ranging from seven to
sixty-three days because they failed to pay magistrate court fees and fines. ECF No. 48, Second
Amended Compl. ¶ 2.6 Plaintiffs allege eight causes of actions against Defendants in their official
and individual capacities. Id. ¶¶ 451-535. The relevant facts concerning each Plaintiff are as
follows:
1. Twanda Marshinda Brown
On March 15, 2016, Plaintiff Twanda Marshinda Brown (hereinafter “Brown”) was
ticketed by a Lexington County Sheriff’s Department (hereinafter “LCSD”) officer for driving on
a suspended license (DUS, 2nd offense) and for driving with “no tag light.” Id. at ¶ 141. On April
12, 2016, Brown appeared before Defendant Adams in the Irmo Magistrate Court and pleaded
guilty to both charges. Id. ¶¶ 142, 144. Defendant Adams sentenced Brown to $237.50 in fines and
fees for driving without tag lights and $2,100 in fines and fees for the DUS, 2nd offense. Id. ¶ 145.
Brown claims she advised Defendant Adams that she did not have any money to pay that day and
that Defendant Adams created a payment schedule of $100 each month. Id. ¶ 146. Brown informed
Defendant Adams that she could afford to pay only $50 a month, but Defendant Adams required
Brown to pay $100 each month. Id. ¶¶ 147, 148. Brown alleges that Defendant Adams threatened
to jail her for 90 days if she did not make the $100 payment each month. Id. ¶ 150. Brown made
payments beginning on May 12, 2016 through October 4, 2016, which satisfied the court fines and
fees for the tag light offense and contributed towards her fines and fees for the DUS, 2nd offense.
Id. ¶ 159. After October 4, 2016, Brown could no longer afford to make payments and a bench
warrant for nonpayment of court fines and fees was issued on January 12, 2017. Id. ¶¶ 160, 163.

6

The Second Amended Complaint filed on October 19, 2017, is the operative complaint in this case. ECF No. 48.

3

The bench warrant indicated that Brown had a “sentence imposed/balance due of $1,907.63 or 90
days” and that Brown would be jailed “until he/she shall be thereof discharged by due course of
law.” Id. ¶ 163. Brown was arrested on the bench warrant on February 18, 2017, and was informed
that she could pay $1,907.63 or serve 90 days in jail. Id. ¶ 165, 167. Brown served 57 days in jail
and was released on April 15, 2017. Id. ¶ 171.
Brown alleges that she did not know nor did Defendant Adams inform her that she had the
right to request the assistance of a court-appointed attorney before pleading guilty, and the right to
seek a waiver of any public defender application fees due to financial hardship. Id. ¶ 143.
2. Sasha Monique Darby
On August 4, 2016, Sasha Monique Darby (hereinafter “Darby”) was ticketed for assault
and battery in the third degree for hitting her roommate. Id. ¶ 184. Darby appeared in Irmo
Magistrate Court and was handed a “Trial Information and Plea Sheet” along with instructions to
“check a box.” Id. ¶¶ 186, 187. Darby alleges that because the “Trial Information and Plea Sheet”
indicated that an application for a court-appointed attorney required a “$40 non-refundable fee,”
she placed a check mark next to the statement, “I waive my right to have an attorney present.” Id.
¶ 188. Darby also placed a check mark next to the option “not guilty.” Id. ¶ 189. Darby appeared
before Defendant Adams who found Darby guilty of assault and battery in the third degree and
asked her whether she wanted to serve 30 days in jail or pay a fine. Id. ¶¶ 195, 196. Darby indicated
that she would pay a fine; however, after discovering that the fine would be $1,000, she returned
to the courtroom to speak with Defendant Adams. Id. ¶¶ 196, 200-01. Defendant Adams refused
Darby’s proposed payment plan of $100 to $120 a month and ordered Darby to pay $150 a month.
Id. ¶¶ 201-02. Darby paid $200 on the date of the court hearing and $150 payment on October 4,
2017. Id. ¶¶ 203, 205. After October 4, 2017, Darby could not afford to make any further payments

4

and a bench warrant was issued for her arrest on December 6, 2016. Id. ¶¶ 206, 208. Darby was
arrested on the bench warrant on March 28, 2017, and informed that she could pay $680 or serve
20 days in jail. Id. ¶ 213. Darby served 20 days in jail and was released on April 17, 2017. Id. ¶
215.
Darby alleges that Defendant Adams did not inform her that she had the right to request
assistance of a court-appointed attorney and the right to seek waiver of any fees related to the
application for a public defender due to financial hardship. Id. ¶ 192. Darby alleges that Defendant
Adams did not engage in a colloquy with Darby to determine whether any waiver of the right to
counsel was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. Id. at 193. Moreover, Darby alleges that she was
not informed that if her financial circumstances changed in the future or if she was unable to pay
the $150 required each month, that she could request a court hearing on her ability to pay and
alternatives to incarceration. Id. at 204.
3. Cayeshia Cashel Johnson
On August 21, 2016, Cayeshia Cashel Johnson (hereinafter “Johnson”) was in a minor car
accident while driving her mother’s car from Columbia to Myrtle Beach. Id. ¶ 218. Johnson was
charged with simple possession of marijuana and the following five traffic offenses: (1) uninsured
motor vehicle fee violation, 1st offense; (2) operating a motor vehicle without license in
possession; (3) improper start of vehicle; (4) violation of beginner permit; and (5) failure to return
license plate and registration upon loss of insurance, 1st offense. Id. ¶ 220. Johnson claims that one
week before her court hearing on September 22, 2016, she called the Central Traffic Court and
informed the court staff that she could not attend the hearing because she lives in Myrtle Beach
and lacked transportation to Lexington County. Id. ¶¶ 221, 223. Johnson was advised that lack of
transportation was not a valid reason for missing a court hearing and that her case would be tried

5

in her absence. Id. at 224. Johnson inquired on whether she could arrange for a payment plan for
the fines and was told that “the only way to have a payment plan is to talk to the Judge.” Id. ¶ 225.
Johnson claims she left her work and cell phone number and was assured that someone would
contact her; however, Johnson did not receive a response. Id. ¶¶ 226, 227.
On September 22, 2016, the Central Traffic Court tried Johnson’s case in her absence and
found her guilty of all six charges. Id. ¶ 228. On September 26, 2016, the Central Traffic Court
issued a bench warrant for Johnson to pay $1,287.50 or serve 80 days in jail for the following
charges: (1) uninsured motor vehicle fee violation, 1st offense; (2) operating a motor vehicle
without license in possession; and (3) simple possession of marijuana. Id. ¶ 230. On February 13,
2017, Johnson was arrested in Myrtle Beach and jailed for 55 days. Id. ¶¶ 231, 233, 238.
Johnson alleges that she did not receive any notice that she had been tried in absentia; and
convicted for one misdemeanor and five traffic offenses, in which she was sentenced to serve jail
time or pay fines for three of those offenses and sentenced to pay fines and fees on the other three
offenses. Id. ¶ 229. Johnson claims she has an outstanding balance on three offenses in the amount
of $905 plus $100 in mandatory costs with the Central Traffic Court. Id. ¶¶243-45.
4. Amy Marie Palacios
Sometime in June 2015, Amy Marie Palacios (hereinafter “Palacios”) had her driver’s
license suspended for failure to pay a speeding ticket incurred earlier that year. Id. ¶ 250. On
October 28, 2016, Palacios was stopped by state troopers at a roadblock and ticketed for driving
on a suspended license (DUS, 1st offense). Id. ¶¶ 252, 254. The day before her court hearing,
Palacios contacted the Central Traffic Court to reschedule the hearing due to a conflict with her
work schedule and was advised that her employer could fax an affidavit to the court explaining
why she could not attend the hearing. Id. ¶¶ 256, 257. On the same day, Palacios’ employer faxed

6

an affidavit explaining her work schedule and requesting an extension. Id. ¶ 258. Palacios alleges
that no one contacted her in response to her request to reschedule the hearing. Id. ¶ 259. On
November 10, 2016, Palacios was tried in her absence in Central Traffic Court and found guilty
of DUS, 1st offense. Id. ¶ 260. On November 15, 2016, the court issued a bench warrant requiring
payment of $647.50 or serve 30 days in jail. Id. ¶ 262. On February 25, 2017, Palacios was arrested
on the bench warrant and served 21 days in jail. Id. ¶¶ 263, 275.
Palacios alleges that she did not receive any notice that she had been tried in absentia;
convicted of a traffic offense; and sentenced to serve jail time or pay fines and fees for the offense.
Id. ¶ 261.
5. Nora Ann Corder
In July 2016, Nora Ann Corder (hereinafter Corder) was ticketed for neglecting to return
her license plate and registration upon the loss of insurance. Id. ¶ 284. Corder was ordered to pay
a $230 fine and her driver’s license was suspended. Id. ¶ 285. On January 27, 2017, Corder was
ticketed by a LCSD Deputy for DUS, 1st offense; violation of temporary license plates for vehicle
to be registered in another state; and uninsured motor vehicle fee violation, 1st offense. Id. ¶ 289.
Her car was also impounded. Id. ¶ 290. On February 15, 2017, Corder appeared in the Lexington
Magistrate Court and was asked by the Deputy who issued the tickets about what she had “gotten
done.” Id. ¶ 292, 293. Although Corder did not understand what the Deputy was referring to she
explained, she did not have the money to pay the tickets to get her driver’s license reinstated; car
insurance; or get her car out of impound. Id. ¶ 292, 293. The Deputy sought a continuance on her
case so that “she can take care of what she needed to take care of.” Id. ¶ 294.
On March 22, 2017, Corder appeared in the Lexington Magistrate Court and spoke to the
same Deputy about her inability to reinstate her driver’s license and to obtain car insurance. Id. ¶

7

297. The Deputy advised her that if she could reinstate her driver’s license and car insurance, he
would drop certain charges or ask the court to reduce the amount she would have to pay in fines
and fees. Id. The Deputy continued her case to April 19, 2017. Id. ¶ 298.
On April 19, 2017, Corder appeared in Lexington County Magistrate Court and paid the
$230 fine incurred in July 2016 for neglecting to return her license plate and registration upon the
loss of insurance. Id. ¶ 305. Corder informed the Deputy that she had recently secured a new job
and still could not afford to reinstate her driver’s license or car insurance. Id. ¶ 307. The Deputy
informed Corder that he would continue her case for the last time until May 17, 2017. Id.
On May 17, 2017, Corder failed to appear and was found guilty in her absence on all three
charges. Id. ¶¶ 310-311. A bench warrant was issued for her arrest that required Corder to pay
$1,320 or serve 90 days in jail. Id. ¶ 313. Corder was arrested a week later after seeking to file a
dispute on an eviction action in Lexington Magistrate Court. Id. ¶ 319. Corder was jailed for 54
days and released on July 19, 2017. Id. ¶ 223.
Corder claims that she was never instructed on how to prepare for a continued court
hearing; was not informed of her right to request the assistance of a court-appointed attorney; nor
informed of her rights concerning counsel or her right to jury trial on any of the three occasions in
which she appeared in court. Id. ¶ 309. Moreover, Corder claims that she did not receive any notice
that she had been tried in absentia; convicted of three traffic offenses; and sentenced to serve jail
time or pay fines and fees for the three traffic offenses. Id. ¶ 312.
6. Xavier Larry Goodwin
On July 15, 2016, Xavier Larry Goodwin (hereinafter “Goodwin”) received five traffic
tickets during a traffic stop: (1) DUS, 2nd offense; (2) uninsured motor vehicle fee violation, 1st
offense; (3) seatbelt violation; (4) temporary license place – time limit to replace; and (5) use of

8

license plate other than for vehicle which issued. Id. ¶ 326. On August 9, 2016, Goodwin was tried
in his absence and found guilty on all five charges. Id. ¶ 328. On August 10, 2016, the Central
Traffic Court issued a bench warrant requiring Goodwin to pay $1,710 or serve 90 days on the
charges of DUS, 2nd offense and uninsured motor vehicle fee violation, 1st offense. Id. ¶ 330.
On February 2, 2017, Goodwin was ticketed for DUS, 3rd offense and served with the
bench warrant issued on August 10, 2016. Id. ¶¶ 331-335. A bond hearing was held on February
3, 2017, for his DUS, 3rd offense charge, in which Goodwin claims that he was not informed of
his right to request the assistance of court-appointed counsel or his right to seek waiver of any
public defender application fee. Id. ¶ 336. Goodwin also claims that during his transportation to
the court, he asked a Lexington County Detention Center (hereinafter “LCDC”) officer whether
he could request a public defender. Id. ¶ 338. The LCDC officer responded that the screening
process could take a long time and that his incarceration could be extended as a result. Id. Goodwin
pleaded guilty to the charge of DUS, 3rd offense and was sentenced by Defendant Adams to 90
days in jail and $2,100 in fines and fees. Id. ¶¶ 341-42. Goodwin was directed to set up a payment
plan within 30 days of his release from jail. Id. ¶ 343. Goodwin was detained at LCDC for 63 days
for nonpayment of fines and fees and released on April 7, 2017. Id. ¶ 345-347. Upon being
released, Goodwin was transported to the Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center in Richland County to
serve time on bench warrant issued in Richland County and was released on April 26, 2017. Id.
On May 5, 2017, Goodwin returned to the Irmo Magistrate Court and established a $100
monthly payment plan on the outstanding balance of $2,100 in fines and fees. Id. ¶ 351. Goodwin
alleges that he faces imminent and substantial risk that the Irmo Magistrate Court will issue a
bench warrant for his arrest unless he pays $2,063 – the outstanding balance owed for the DUS,
3rd offense conviction. Id. ¶ 359.

9

Goodwin claims that Defendant Adams did not inform him that he had the right to request
the assistance of a court-appointed attorney before pleading guilty and the right to seek a waiver
of any fees related to the application for a public defender due to financial hardship. Id.
7. Raymond Wright, Jr.
On July 1, 2016, Raymond Wright, Jr. (hereinafter “Wright”) was ticketed for DUS, 1st
offense. Id. ¶ 363. Wright pleaded guilty on July 26, 2016, and was required to pay $666.93 in
fines and fees. Id. ¶ 336. He established a payment plan of $50 per month and made payments
from July 26, 2016 through December 7, 2016. Id. ¶¶ 369-70. After December 7, 2016, Wright
could no longer afford to make payments and was summoned for a show cause hearing on April
19, 2017. Id. ¶¶ 373-74. At the hearing, Wright was informed that he would be jailed if he did not
pay the full $416.93 balance within 10 days. Id. ¶ 378. Wright was unable to pay the full balance
and on May 2, 2017, the Central Traffic Court issued a bench warrant for his arrest requiring him
to pay $416.93 or serve 10 days in jail. Id. ¶ 381-382. On July 25, 2017, Wright was arrested and
incarcerated for seven days until August 1, 2017. Id. ¶ 390.
Wright alleges that a Central Traffic Court Judge made a general announcement that all
defendants had a right to an attorney. Id. ¶¶ 375. Wright alleges that the Judge7 did not inform him
that he had the right to request assistance of a court-appointed attorney and the right to seek waiver
of any fees related to the application for a public defender due to financial hardship. Id. ¶ 375.
Moreover, Wright alleges that the Judge did not engage in a colloquy with him to determine
whether any waiver of the right to counsel was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. Id. ¶ 376.

7

In Plaintiffs’ complaint, Plaintiff Wright does not specify the name of the presiding Judge.

10

II.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On June 1, 2017, Plaintiffs brought the present lawsuit against Defendants alleging
numerous constitutional violations. ECF No. 1. On June 2, 2017, Plaintiff Goodwin filed a motion
to certify class on behalf of himself and the other Plaintiffs. ECF No. 5.
On July 21, 2017, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against all Defendants.8 ECF No.
20. An amended motion to certify class was also filed on July 21, 2017. ECF No. 21. In the
amended motion to certify class, Plaintiff Goodwin and Wright, Jr., seek to be appointed as Class
Representatives and to appoint the ACLU Foundation, the ACLU of South Carolina Foundation,
and Terrell Marshall Law Group, PLLC, as Class Counsel. ECF No. 21 at 2-3. Plaintiff Goodwin
and Wright also seek certification of the following Class: “All indigent people who currently owe,
or in the future will owe, fines, fees, court costs, assessments, or restitution in cases handled by
Lexington County Magistrate Court.” Id. at 2. Plaintiffs seek class certification only for purposes
of Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. Id.
On August 18, 2017, Defendants collectively filed a motion for partial summary judgment
concerning Plaintiff’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief.9 ECF No. 29. Defendants argue
that Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are moot considering that six of the
seven Plaintiffs’ sentences have been satisfied and no longer present a live case or controversy.

8

The amended complaint seeks to include allegations that Plaintiff Goodwin and Wright currently face an imminent
threat of arrest and incarceration as they cannot afford to pay fines and fees due to Lexington County Magistrate Court.
ECF No. 20 at 2. On August 17, 2017, Defendants filed an answer to Plaintiffs’ amended complaint. ECF Nos. 24,
25, 26, 27, and 28.
9
The following five claims seek declaratory and injunctive relief: Cause of Action 1 for incarceration without predeprivation ability to pay hearing by Plaintiffs Goodwin and Wright; Cause of Action 2 for failure to afford assistance
of counsel by Goodwin and Wright; Cause of Action 3 for unconstitutional seizure by Goodwin and Wright; Cause of
Action 7 for incarceration without pre-deprivation ability to pay by Goodwin; and Cause of Action 8 for failure to
afford assistance of counsel by Goodwin. ECF No. 20 at 91-118, First Amended Complaint. At the time, Defendants
filed their motion Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint was the operative complaint. On October 18, 2017, Plaintiffs
filed a Second Amended Complaint and this complaint is the current operative complaint. ECF No. 48. Defendants
filed answers to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint on November 1, 2017 and November 2, 2017, respectively.
ECF Nos. 52, 53, 54, 55.

11

ECF No. 29-1 at 4. In support thereof, Defendants submitted an Affidavit from Colleen Long,
employed as the Deputy Court Administrator for the Lexington County Summary Court, who
provided the status of the seven Plaintiffs’ as disclosed in the Lexington County records. ECF No.
29-2, Exhibit 1. Defendants argue that the Affidavit sets forth in detail that the criminal
proceedings against the six of the seven Plaintiffs have concluded. ECF No. 29-1 at 3.
Moreover, Defendants argue that, with respect to remaining Plaintiff Goodwin, the doctrine
of abstention set forth in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), prohibits the court from
intervening in his ongoing state criminal proceeding. ECF No. 29-1 at 6. Defendants contend that
all three Younger requirements are satisfied in this case: (1) Plaintiff Goodwin’s sentence for the
DUS, 3rd offense has not been concluded; (2) violations of state traffic laws implicate an important
state interest – the safety of its roadways; and (3) if a bench warrant is issued for Plaintiff
Goodwin’s arrest, he would have the adequate opportunity to raise some, if not all, of his current
challenges in the context of the state proceeding. Id. at 7. Therefore, Defendants request that
Plaintiff’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief be dismissed. Id. at 8.
Also on August 18, 2017, Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion to certify
class. ECF No. 30. Defendants assert that the court’s consideration of Plaintiffs’ motion to certify
class should be postponed until the issues raised in Defendants’ summary judgment motion have
been resolved. Id. at 1. Defendants argue that if “Defendants’ summary judgment motion is granted
on the issue of the absence of a case or controversy, it goes without saying that a class of such
plaintiffs cannot be certified.” Id. at 2. Defendants further argue that whether Younger abstention
applies should be addressed prior to any determination of Plaintiffs’ class certification. Id. at 2. In
support of this argument, Defendants cite to case law that instruct district courts to reach the
abstention issue first and then decide on the class certification. Id. at 3. Defendants contend that if

12

their summary judgment motion is granted “there is no need to consider class certification at all.”
Id.
On September 11, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to Defendants’ motion for
partial summary judgment, which included Affidavits from Plaintiffs Goodwin and Wright. ECF
No. 35. Plaintiffs Goodwin and Wright assert the requirements for standing are satisfied because
they present a live case and controversy. Id. at 19. Plaintiff Goodwin and Wright argue that when
the complaint was filed they faced a real imminent threat of injury on being arrested upon
nonpayment of court fees. Id. at 19-24. Thus, Plaintiff Goodwin and Wright contend they have
standing to assert claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. Id. at 24. Plaintiff Goodwin further
alleges that his claims are not moot because he still owes fines and fees to Lexington County
Magistrate Court and therefore the court may proceed to certify the class on this basis alone. Id.
Plaintiff Wright asserts that although he no longer owes fines and fees to Lexington County
Magistrate Court, he can pursue his claims for prospective relief on behalf of the proposed class
pursuant to Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975), which provides an exception to the mootness
doctrine by way of allowing claims to remain live until the court certifies the class. ECF No. 35 at
25.
With respect to Defendants’ argument that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the Younger
doctrine, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants mischaracterized the scope of the doctrine and
incorrectly applied it to this case. Id. at 29. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants ignored the recent
Supreme Court’s decision in Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs, 134 S. Ct. 584 (2013), that
discussed the Younger abstention and federal court jurisdiction when applying the Younger
doctrine. Id. at 30. Plaintiffs claim Sprint limited the application of Younger to three “exceptional
circumstances” that do not apply to this case. Id. In applying Younger, Plaintiffs claim that (1)

13

there is no “ongoing state criminal proceeding” against Plaintiff Goodwin because he was
convicted and sentenced with no further pending criminal proceedings at the present time, id. at
37; (2) the important state interests have been satisfied because Plaintiff Goodwin has already been
convicted and sentenced to jail time for DUS, 3rd offense, id. at 38; and (3) Plaintiff Goodwin
does not have the opportunity to raise his claims in state court. Id. Therefore, Plaintiffs request that
the court deny Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment. Id. at 39.
Defendants filed a reply on September 22, 2017, arguing that, even if Plaintiffs’ claims are
categorized as “inherently transitory” under Gerstein, Plaintiffs’ claims do not overcome the
Younger abstention principles. ECF No. 39 at 2. Defendants concede that Plaintiff Goodwin’s
claim for declaratory and injunctive relief is the only claim that has standing, but is barred by the
Younger doctrine. Id. at 4. Defendants maintain that the requirements of Younger have been
satisfied and Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden on this issue. Id. at 8-9. Defendants further
argue that Plaintiff Goodwin still has an opportunity to raise his claims in the state court. Id. at 910.
On September 22, 2017, Defendants filed a supplemental motion in support of their motion
for partial summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. ECF No.
40. Defendants attached a Memorandum issued by Chief Judge Donald W. Beatty to Magistrate
Judges and Municipal Judges on September 15, 2017, that provided as follows:
“Absent a waiver of counsel, or the appointment of counsel for an indigent
defendant, summary court judges shall not impose a sentence of jail time, and are
limited to imposing a sentence of a fine only for those defendants, if convicted.
When imposing a fine, consideration should be given to a defendant’s ability to
pay. If a fine is imposed, an unrepresented defendant should be advised of the
amount of the fine and when the fine must be paid. This directive would also be
apply to those defendants who fail to appear at trial and are tried in their absence.”
ECF No. 40, Exhibit 1.

14

Defendants argue that the Fourth Circuit has held that “a government entity’s change of
policy renders a challenge moot when the government entity ‘has not asserted its right to enforce
[the challenged policy] at any future time.” Id. at 3. (citing Porter v. Clarke, 852 F.3d 358, 364
(4th Cir. 2017) (internal citations omitted)). Therefore, Defendants assert that the Chief Justice’s
Memorandum renders moot Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief and those claims
should be dismissed. ECF No. 40 at 4.
In response, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to Defendants’ supplemental motion on October
13, 2017. ECF No. 43. Plaintiffs argue that (1) Defendants must meet a heavy burden under the
voluntary cessation doctrine to prove that the Chief Justice’s Memorandum moots Plaintiffs’
prospective relief claims, id. at 16; (2) Defendants fail to demonstrate that the County’s Magistrate
Courts have terminated their conduct and that the conduct cannot reasonably be expected to recur,
id. at 19; (3) evidence in the record raises questions of material fact concerning whether
Defendants’ conduct continues to result in unlawful arrest and incarceration of indigent people
who cannot pay money owed to the County’s Magistrate Courts, id. at 29-31; and (4) additional
discovery is necessary to defend against Defendants’ premature motion, id. at 31-35.
On October 30, 2017, Defendants filed a motion to stay consideration of the supplemental
motion pending a ruling on Defendants’ original motion for partial summary judgment filed on
August 18, 2017. ECF No. 49. Defendants state that “Plaintiffs’ response to the motion indicates
that discovery about the application in practice of the Chief Justice’s memorandum might be
necessary in order to resolve the supplemental motion, which is not the case for the original
motion.” Id. at 2-3. In addition, Defendants informed the court that South Carolina Court
Administration has scheduled a training session for Summary Court Judges to ensure compliance
with Chief Justice Beatty’s Memorandum and attached a copy of the training agenda. Id. at 1-2,

15

Exhibit 1. Defendants contend that this supplemental motion “could be taken up at a future time if
necessary, if the original motion for summary judgment . . . is not granted, or if events following
the training session clarify any questions about the implementation of Chief Justice Beatty’s
memorandum.” Id. at 3.
In response, Plaintiffs requested that the court deny and strike Defendants’ supplemental
motion for summary judgment on November 13, 2017. ECF No. 58 at 4. Plaintiffs further
requested that the court allow discovery to proceed. Id. at 5. Defendants withdrew their
supplemental motion and their motion to stay proceedings with leave to refile at a later time on
November 21, 2017. ECF No. 62.
On October 31, 2017, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’
damages claims. ECF No. 50. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ causes of action numbered 4, 5,
and 6 seeking damages should be dismissed for the following reasons: (1) if Plaintiffs’ claims were
to be recognized, such result would necessarily imply that their criminal convictions are invalid,
and therefore those claims are barred by Heck v. Humphry, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)10 and by the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine;11 ECF No. 50-1 at 4-8; (2) Plaintiffs’ claims against the three Judicial
Defendants and Defendant Sheriff Koon are barred by judicial or quasi-judicial immunity, id. at
9; (3) even if these Defendants “had created a ‘policy’ governing the handling of cases such as
those of the Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ damage claims against [them] are barred by legislative

The Supreme Court in Heck held that “[w]hen a state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court must
consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or
sentence; if it would, the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or
sentence has already been invalidated.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 487.
11
District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983) and Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S.
413 (1923). See Davani v. Virginia Dept. of Transp., 434 F.3d 712, 717 (4th Cir. 2006) (noting that the RookerFeldman doctrine generally bars district courts from sitting in direct review of state court decisions. The prohibition
extends not only to issues actually decided by a state court but also to those that are inextricably intertwined with
questions ruled upon by a state court. A federal claim is inextricably intertwined with a state court decision if success
on the federal claims depends upon a determination that the state court wrongly decided the issues before it.).
10

16

immunity,” id. at 10; (4) that, as a matter of law, Defendants have no authority to prescribe rules
or policies for the determination of individual cases along the lines alleged by Plaintiffs’ claims,
id. at 11; (5) Plaintiffs’ claims against Lexington County for the alleged underfunding of the public
defender system are barred for lack of causation, because Magistrates can still appoint counsel for
indigent persons from members of the bar, id. at 14; and (6) Plaintiffs’ damages claim against
Defendant Madsen as public defender is a suit against the County itself and should be dismissed
as duplicative, id. at 14.
On November 29, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in
Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Damages Claims along with
Affidavits from all seven Plaintiffs. ECF No. 66. Plaintiffs argue that Defendants’ reliance on Heck
is misplaced for two reasons: (1) Plaintiffs had no practical access to habeas relief while in custody,
id. at 27; and (2) success on Plaintiffs’ damages claims does not invalidate Plaintiffs’ guilty pleas,
convictions, or sentence, id. at 29. In addition, Plaintiffs argue that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine
does not apply because Plaintiffs do not attack their underlying guilty pleas, convictions, or
sentences. ECF No. 66 at 34. Instead, Plaintiffs’ damages claims dispute the “post-sentencing
procedures used to arrest and incarcerate them when they could not pay money in violation of their
rights to due process, equal protection, counsel, and freedom from unreasonable seizures.” Id.
With respect to judicial and quasi-judicial immunity, Plaintiffs contend that “Defendants
fail to demonstrate that Defendants Reinhart and Adams acted in a judicial, rather than
administrative, capacity when engaged in the challenged conduct.” Id. at 36. Plaintiffs assert that
Plaintiffs’ damages claim against Defendant Reinhart and Adams are for their actions in their
administrative capacities as Chief Judge and Associate Chief Judge for Administrative Purposes
of the Lexington County Summary Courts and not in their judicial capacity. Id. at 37. Similarly,

17

Plaintiffs argue that their claims against Defendant Koon are not for arresting Plaintiffs, but for his
“administrative authority as the head of the Lexington County Sheriff’s Department to establish
standard operating procedures that directly and proximately caused Plaintiffs’ unlawful arrest and
incarceration.” Id. at 40. Moreover, Plaintiffs argue that “Defendants Reinhart, Adams, and Koon
fail to show that they acted in a legislative capacity when engaged in the challenged conduct.” Id.
at 42. Based on these reasons, Plaintiffs request that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment
on Plaintiffs’ damages claims be denied and the case proceed to discovery. Id. at 50-54.
Defendants filed a reply on December 13, 2017, maintaining that Plaintiffs’ claims are
barred by judicial and quasi-judicial immunity. ECF No. 70 at 5-10. Defendants argue that
Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden on the application of Heck and the Rooker-Feldman
Doctrine. Id. at 15-17. In addition, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs have not made a showing
that would entitle them to engage in discovery. Id. at 19-21.
On February 5, 2018, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation
recommending that the court: (1) deny Plaintiffs’ motion to certify class, ECF No. 21; (2) grant
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to declaratory and injunctive relief, ECF No. 29;
(3) deny Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiffs’ damages claims against
Lexington County for failure to afford counsel and grant the motion as to all other claims, ECF
No. 50. Pursuant to Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005), the
parties were advised of the right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation and the
possible consequences if they failed to timely file written objections to the Report and
Recommendation. Both parties filed objections on March 2, 2018, ECF Nos. 79, 80, and filed
replies on March 22, 2018 and March 23, 2018. ECF Nos. 81, 82.

18

III.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A. Magistrate Judge’s Finding in Report and Recommendation
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with
the court. Matthews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The court reviews de novo only those
portions of a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are
filed, and reviews those portions which are not objected to – including those portions to which
only “general and conclusory” objections have been made – for clear error. Diamond v. Colonial
Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir.
1983); Opriano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 77 (4th Cir. 1982). The court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter
with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
B. Motion for Summary Judgment
Summary judgment should be granted “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute
as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(a). A fact is “material” if proof of its existence or non-existence would affect the disposition of
the case under the applicable law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-49 (1986).
A genuine question of material fact exists where, after reviewing the record as a whole, the court
finds that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Newport News Holding
Corp. v. Virtual City Vision, 650 F.3d 423, 434 (4th Cir. 2011).
In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a court must view the evidence in the light
most favorable to the non-moving party. Perini Corp. v. Perini Constr., Inc., 915 F.2d 121, 12324 (4th Cir. 1990). The non-moving party may not oppose a motion for summary judgment with

19

mere allegations or denials of the movant’s pleading, but instead must “set forth specific facts”
demonstrating a genuine issue for trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 324 (1986); Shealy v. Winston, 929 F.2d 1009, 1012 (4th Cir. 1991). All that is required
is that “sufficient evidence supporting the claimed factual dispute be shown to require a jury or
judge to resolve the parties’ differing versions of the truth at trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249.
IV.

DISCUSSION

A. Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
1. Plaintiffs’ motion to certify class and Defendants’ motion for partial summary
judgment as to declaratory and injunctive relief (ECF Nos. 21, ECF No. 29)
First, the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiffs’ claims for prospective, injunctive, and
declaratory relief are moot. ECF No. 74 at 12. The Magistrate Judge determined that the
Memorandum issued by Chief Justice Donald W. Beatty of the South Carolina Supreme Court
addressed to all South Carolina Magistrate and Municipal Judges mooted Plaintiffs’ claims,
because “no future injury to Plaintiffs is impending, nor have Plaintiffs shown a substantial
controversy of sufficient immediacy.” Id. at 13 (citing Super Tire Eng’g Co. v. McCorkle, 416
U.S. 115, 122 (1974) (requiring allegations to show a substantial controversy of sufficient
immediacy and reality to warrant declaratory relief)). The Magistrate Judge acknowledged that
Plaintiff Goodwin is still subject to being jailed for failure to pay fines, but has not claimed that he
is subject to a live bench warrant. ECF No. 74 at 13 n.3. The Magistrate Judge concluded that
absent a showing of a live case or controversy, Plaintiffs’ claims for prospective relief should be
dismissed as moot, as well as Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification being that it relies on claims
for prospective relief.12 Id. at 13. Therefore, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the court deny

Plaintiffs seek class certification only for purposes of Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. ECF
No. 21 at 2.
12

20

Plaintiffs’ motion to certify class, ECF No. 21, and grant Defendants’ motion for partial summary
judgment as to declaratory and injunctive relief, ECF No. 29.
2. Defendants’ motion for summary on Plaintiffs’ damages claims (ECF No. 50)
i.

Judicial Defendants

Second, the Magistrate Judge found that all Judicial Defendants are entitled to absolute
immunity. ECF No. 74 at 14. The Magistrate Judge noted that, although Plaintiffs contend that
Judicial Defendants are sued for actions they took in their administrative capacities as Chief Judges
and Associate Chief Judges, “a closer analysis of Plaintiffs’ argument reveals that Plaintiffs do not
sue the Judicial Defendants for their actions, but only for alleged omissions, which Plaintiffs couch
as ‘decisions’ not to act in some way.” Id. The Magistrate Judge found that “the alleged
administrative decisions Plaintiffs argue should have been made could only have been made by a
judge, evidencing their judicial nature.” Id. at 16. As such, the Magistrate Judge “was not
persuaded that an alleged decision, which can only be made by a judge and that affects the
adjudication of a criminal proceeding, can be characterized as a non-judicial administrative
decision such that the judge should be deprived of judicial immunity.” Id. Thus, the Magistrate
Judge determined that “allowing an action to proceed against the Judicial Defendants in this
instance would virtually eliminate the doctrine of judicial immunity, as any disgruntled litigant
could bypass the barrier of judicial immunity by simply suing the chief judge of a court.” Id. The
Magistrate Judge finds that Judicial Defendants are also entitled to immunity from injunctive
relief. Id. at 19.
ii.

Defendant Koon

Third, the Magistrate Judge found that Defendant Koon is entitled to quasi-judicial
immunity. ECF No. 74 at 17. The Magistrate Judge noted that Plaintiffs assert “that they sue Koon

21

for his ‘exercise of administrative authority as the head of the [LCSD] to establish the standard
operating procedures that directly and proximately caused Plaintiffs’ unlawful arrest and
incarceration.’” Id. at 18. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge noted that “Plaintiffs have not alleged
Koon or his deputies committed any constitutional violation independently of their action in
executing court-ordered bench warrants . . . or how any of Koon’s alleged administrative actions
deprived them of their constitutional rights.” Id. at 19. Therefore, the Magistrate Judge
recommended that Defendant Koon be dismissed as he is entitled to absolute quasi-judicial
immunity. Id.
iii.

Defendant Madsen

Fourth, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendant Madsen be dismissed as
duplicative. ECF No. 74 at 20. The Magistrate Judge found that Defendant Madsen is sued in his
official capacity and that “official capacity suits represent an alternative way of pleading an action
against an entity of which an officer is an agent.” Id. at 20 (citing Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S.
159, 165 (1985)). The Magistrate Judge determined that “the parties do not dispute that Madsen is
an agent of Lexington County.” Id. Therefore, the Magistrate Judge found that “because Plaintiffs
have asserted the same causes of action against Lexington County and Madsen, the claims against
Madsen are duplicative, and . . . Madsen should be dismissed.” Id. at 20.
iv.

Defendant Lexington County

Fifth, the Magistrate Judge rejected Defendants’ argument that a damage claim for
underfunding the public defender system against Lexington County is “barred based on the lack
of causation because a judge could appoint a member of the bar to represent an indigent person if
the public defender system did not exist.” Id. at 20. The Magistrate Judge reviewed S.C. Code
Ann. § 17-3-10, which provides, in relevant part: “Any person entitled to counsel under the

22

Constitution of the United States shall be so advised and if it is determined that the person is
financially unable to retain counsel then counsel shall be provided upon order of the appropriate
judge unless each person voluntarily and intelligently waives his right thereto.” ECF No. 74 at 21.
The Magistrate Judge determined that “the statute does not address whether the court may appoint
a member of the bar for indigent defendants and therefore is not relevant to causation.” Id.
Therefore, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on
their damages claim against Lexington County for failure to afford assistance of counsel be denied
without prejudice. Id.
B. Plaintiffs’ Objections to the Report and Recommendation
Plaintiffs object to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on several
grounds. ECF No. 80. First, Plaintiffs argue that their claims for prospective relief remain live
following the issuance of Chief Justice’s Memorandum. Id. at 25. Plaintiffs claim there is
undisputed evidence showing that after the issuance of Chief Justice Beatty’s Memorandum
constitutional violations continue to occur against individuals who are arrested on bench warrants
and do not receive an inability to pay hearing before the Magistrate Courts. Id. at 15, 18. Plaintiffs
allege that the Chief Justice’s Memorandum does not address the following: (1) two central
constitutional violations challenged by Plaintiffs based on the “ongoing, substantial risk that
indigent people will be arrested based on warrants unsupported by probable cause,” and “the
ongoing, substantial risk that these indigent people will then be automatically incarcerated when
they cannot pay in full their debts to the County Magistrate Courts without any pre-deprivation
court hearing involving consideration of ability to pay,” Id. at 29; (2) the Memorandum does not
bind Defendants’ exercise of administrative and policymaking authority to ensure that violations
of Plaintiffs’ constitutional amendment rights cannot be expected to recur in Lexington County;

23

and (3) the Memorandum does not eliminate the controversy between Plaintiff Goodwin and
Defendant Adams “because it does not address the requirements to hold ability to pay hearings
and because merely reminding Defendant Adams of constitutional requirements does not ensure
she will not violate such requirements in the future.” Id. at 48. Thus, Plaintiffs assert there are
issues of material fact that must be addressed with respect to the application of the Memorandum
issued by Chief Justice Beatty. Id. at 33.
In addition, Plaintiffs object to the Magistrate Judge’s findings that the doctrines of judicial
and quasi-judicial immunity shield claims against the Judicial Defendants and Defendant Koon.
Id. at 34. Plaintiff argues that Defendant Adams, Dooley, and Koon may be sued in their official
capacities as administrators under Ex Parte Young, which provides that “a plaintiff may sue a state
actor in his or her official capacity for prospective relief to stop ongoing violations of federal law
including 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” ECF No. 80 at 34. Plaintiff argues that Ex Parte Young is applicable
to this case because Defendants Adam and Koon are responsible for administering procedures at
Magistrate Courts and Defendant Koon is responsible for administering procedures at Lexington
County Sheriff Department and the Detention Center. Id. at 35. Thus, Plaintiffs claim that these
Defendants are state actors in their administrative capacity and are not entitled to immunity. Id. at
35-36.
Specifically, Plaintiffs argue they “do not challenge any judicial acts or omissions by these
Defendants but instead contest their enforcement of county-wide policies in their administrative
capacities.” Id. at 36. Plaintiffs noted that “whether judges are proper defendants in a § 1983 action
depends on whether they are acting as adjudicators or as administrators, enforcers, or advocators.”
ECF No. 80 at 36 (citing Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 365 (9th Cir. 2004)). Plaintiffs further
noted that “a judicial defendant’s ‘[a]administrative decisions, even though they may be essential

24

to the very functioning of the courts, [are] not . . . regarded as judicial acts.’” ECF No. 80 at 36
(citing Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 228 (1988)). As such, Plaintiffs argue that their
“prospective claims challenge deliberative administrative decisions that Defendants Adams and
Dooley make in their administrative capacities - decisions to limit Magistrate Court dockets;
schedules; and hours of operations as well as requests for County funding for court operations to
exclude from Magistrate Court practice any hearings to determine the ability to pay of indigent
people subject to payment bench warrants.” ECF No. 80 at 38. Therefore, “[b]ecause Plaintiffs
challenge conduct that has nothing to do with judges’ exercise of discretion to adjudicate
individual cases, Plaintiffs’ prospective relief claims Defendants Adams and Dooley do not fall
within Section 1983’s bar on injunctive relief.” Id. at 40. Likewise, Plaintiffs argue Defendant
Koon “is sued for administrative conduct that extends well beyond the mere execution of bench
warrants,” and do not bar injunctive relief claims against Defendant Koon. Id. at 41.
Plaintiffs request that the court allow the case to proceed to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d)13
discovery on whether the challenged conduct and whether Plaintiffs’ claims against the individual
Defendants concern administrative, rather than judicial or quasi-judicial conduct. Id. at 43.
Plaintiffs “request time to conduct discovery on whether Defendants ceased the challenged
conduct following issuance of the Chief Justice’s Memorandum.” Id. at 44. In support thereof,
Plaintiffs’ assert that they “have put forward evidence that raises genuine questions of material
fact and thus precludes summary judgment for the individual Defendants on Plaintiffs’ damages
claims based on judicial and quasi-judicial immunity.” Id. Moreover, Plaintiffs argue that they
“have submitted a request for production of records concerning policies, procedures . . . and

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) provides that “[i]f a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specific reasons, it
cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition,” the court may, inter alia, permit the requested discovery and
defer considering the motion or deny it. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d).
13

25

training on the imposition of court fines and fees . . . to defeat summary judgment on the basis of
judicial and quasi-judicial immunity.” Id. at 45. Therefore, Plaintiffs argue the Magistrate Judge
erred as a matter of law by not addressing Plaintiffs’ timely requests for Rule 56(d) discovery. Id.
Lastly, Plaintiffs claim that neither § 1983 nor judicial immunity bars Plaintiff Goodwin’s
declaratory relief against Defendant Adam for conduct in her judicial capacity. Id. at 46. Plaintiff
Goodwin asserts that Defendant Adam’s ongoing judicial conduct places him at continuing and
foreseeable risk of being arrested and incarcerated for nonpayment without a pre-deprivation court
hearing and his inability to pay without the assistance of court-appointed counsel. Id. at 46.
Plaintiffs request that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be denied and that the court rule
on Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Id. at 47.
C. Defendant Lexington County Objections to the Report and Recommendation
Defendant Lexington County contends that the Magistrate Judge erred in recommending
dismissal of the claims against all Defendants except Lexington County. ECF No. 79 at 1.
Defendant assert that only one of numerous grounds in its motion for summary judgment was
discussed by the Magistrate Judge. Id. at 1. Defendant Lexington County argues that the “alleged
failures to provide appointed counsel for indigent persons do not give rise to a cause of action for
damages against the County.” Id. at 2. Defendants cite the following reasons: (1) any alleged
underfunding of a public defender system does not, as a matter of law, show proximate cause of
any alleged injury; (2) no authority supports Plaintiffs’ claims for damages against a local
governing body for alleged failure to fund a public defender system; (3) the damage claims against
Lexington County are barred by Heck and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Id. at 2-13. Therefore,
Defendants request that the court decline to adopt the portion of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation that declines to dismiss the damages claims against Lexington County. Id. at 13.

26

D. Analysis
1. Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Declaratory and
Injunctive Relief
At issue in Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is whether Chief Justice Beatty’s
Memorandum renders moot Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. “[A] case is
moot when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest
in the outcome.” Telco Commc’n, Inc. v. Carbaugh, 885 F.2d 1225, 1230 (4th Cir. 1989). “There
is, however, a well-recognized exception to the mootness doctrine holding that “a defendant’s
voluntary cessation of a challenged practice does not deprive a federal court of its power to
determine the legality of the practice.” Porter v. Clark, 852 F.3d 358, 364 (4th Cir. 2017). This
“exception ‘traces to the principle that a party should not be able to evade judicial review, or to
defeat a judgment, by temporarily altering questionable behavior.’” Id. To assert voluntary
cessation, “a defendant claiming that its voluntary compliance moots a case bears the formidable
burden of showing that it is absolutely clear the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably
be expected to recur.” Id. (citing Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., Inc., 528 U.S.
167, 190 (2000); see also Telco, 885 F.2d at 1231 (recognizing that “[j]urisdiction, however, may
abate if there is no reasonable expectation that the alleged violation will recur and ‘interim events
have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation”)).
Defendants argue Plaintiffs’ claims have been addressed by Chief Justice Beatty’s
Memorandum, which “effectively orders Summary Court Judges to provide the relief sought by
Plaintiffs in this case, to the extent such relief was not already being provided.” See ECF No. 39
at 2. Plaintiffs assert that there are genuine issues of material fact as to the compliance and
implementation of the Memorandum in Magistrate Courts. See ECF No. 80 at 22. More
specifically, Plaintiffs assert that “according to court and Detention Center records, in the 24 days

27

following issuance of the Memorandum, the County’s Magistrate Court issued 50 new payment
bench warrants, and at least 57 people were incarcerated in the Detention Center after being
arrested on payment bench warrants issued by a Lexington County Magistrate Court.” Id. at 22.
After reviewing the record, the court finds there is an issue of material fact as to the application of
Chief Justice Beatty’s Memorandum in Magistrate Court and whether the alleged conduct could
not reasonably be expected to recur. Therefore, the court denies Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment as to declaratory and injunctive relief.
2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ claims for damages.
“As a general rule, judges acting in their judicial capacity are absolutely immune (in both
their individual and official capacities) from suit for monetary damages under the doctrine of
judicial immunity.” Ingram v. Township of Deptford, 858 F. Supp. 2d 386, 390 (D.N.J. 2012).
“Quasi-judicial immunity is given only to public employees who perform judge-like functions and
attaches when a public official’s role is functionally comparable to that of a judge.” Id. at 390.
“Absolute immunity does not apply in every action against a judge or court personnel.” Id. “[T]he
touchstone for the applicability of the doctrine of judicial immunity is ‘the performance of the
function of resolving disputes between parties, or of authoritatively adjudicating private rights.”
Id. “The Supreme Court has stated that judicial immunity does not protect the ‘administrative,
legislative, or executive’ acts performed by judges.” Id. at 391. “Therefore, it [is] the nature of the
function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it, that informs [] [an] immunity
analysis.” Id.
Upon reviewing the record, the court finds that there are genuine issues of material fact as
to whether Defendants are entitled to judicial and quasi-judicial immunity. Plaintiffs assert that the
challenged conduct was administrative in nature case and thus immunity does not apply. On the

28

other hand, Defendants argue that the doctrines of judicial and quasi-judicial immunity shield them
because the challenged conduct pertains to ‘judicial acts’ performed in their official capacities as
judges. The court finds that there are issues of material fact as to whether the challenged conduct
is considered “administrative” or ‘judicial’ acts, as well as, to the scope of Defendants’
administrative duties in the Magistrate Court. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for summary
judment as to Plaintiffs’ claims for damages is denied. The matter should proceed to discovery.
See Al Shimari v. CACI Intern, Inc., 679 F.3d 205, 220 (4th Cir. 2012) (“[D]isputed questions that
arises with respect to claims of immunity are not the exception . . . fundamentally, a court is entitled
to have before it a proper record, sufficiently developed through discovery proceedings, to
accurately assess any claim, including one of immunity. And even a party whose assertion of
immunity proves worthy must submit to the burdens of litigation until a court becomes sufficiently
informed to rule.”).
V.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court DECLINES to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation. Plaintiffs’ motion to certify class is DENIED without prejudice. ECF No.
21. Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment as to declaratory and injunctive relief is
DENIED without prejudice, ECF No. 29. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on damages
claim is DENIED without prejudice, ECF No. 50. This matter is recommitted to the Magistrate
Judge further pretrial handling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_s/ Margaret B. Seymour ___________
Margaret B. Seymour
Senior United States District Court Judge
Dated: March 29, 2018

29