Thomas v. South Carolina, State of

Filing 13

ORDER adopting 10 Report and Recommendation and dismissing case without prejudice. Plaintiff shall have until January 12, 2018 to file an Amended Complaint should he desire to do so. Failure to file an Amended Complaint will result in entry of judgment dismissing this action without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 12/14/2017. (mwal)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Edgar Darrel Thomas,

Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-2882-CMC
Plaintiff,

vs.

ORDER

The State of South Carolina,
Defendant.
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s complaint regarding his 2015 prosecution in
Kershaw County Magistrate Court. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff entered a guilty plea for conditional
discharge pursuant to South Carolina Code §44-53-450, pleading to simple possession of
marijuana. ECF No. 1-1 at 5. Plaintiff failed to comply with his conditional discharge and was
charged a fine of $1,047.51. Id. at 7. Plaintiff appealed to Kershaw County Court of Common
Pleas, which affirmed the Magistrate Court.
Plaintiff now requests this court “declare[] the proceeding in the [state] magistrate court
was a violation of Due Process,” “clarify nullify [sic] that orders from the magistrate are invalid
do [sic] to violation of Due Process,” and “grant money judgment” to Plaintiff in the amount of
three times the fine imposed by the state Magistrate Court. ECF No. 1. In accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2), D.S.C., this matter was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and
Recommendation (“Report”). On November 1, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report
recommending this matter be summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and
service of process. ECF No. 10. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and

requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so.
Plaintiff filed objections to the Report on November 17, 2017. ECF No. 12.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the
court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo
determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection
is made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made
by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b).
Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment his Due Process rights were violated and damages
from the State of South Carolina based on his prosecution in the Kershaw County Magistrate Court.
The Magistrate Judge construed this as a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 10. Section
1983 “creates a remedy for violations of federal rights committed by persons acting under color of
state law.” Howlett By and Through Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 356 (1990). This court agrees
with the Magistrate Judge this action is properly construed as brought under § 1983, and his claim
for damages against the State of South Carolina would be barred by Eleventh Amendment
Sovereign Immunity. 1

1

The court notes Plaintiff’s claim for declaratory judgment asks this court to invalidate orders and
proceedings by the South Carolina Magistrate Judge. The court’s issuance of a declaratory
judgment to that effect would necessarily imply the invalidity of Plaintiff’s conviction in state
court. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994); Harvey v. Horan, 278 F.3d 370, 375
2

In his objections, Plaintiff contends his complaint was “misconstrued” and is not a claim
under § 1983. ECF No. 12. Plaintiff’s Complaint states 18 U.S.C. § 241 and 242 give this court
jurisdiction over this matter. However, those are criminal statutes, used to bring charges against
an individual by the Federal Government. See United States v. Price, 383 U.S. 787, 784 n.7 (1966)
(noting 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the civil counterpart to § 242). Neither grants a federal court
jurisdiction over a civil lawsuit such as this one. As explained above, Plaintiff’s claim is properly
construed as one against the State of South Carolina under § 1983, and a claim for damages under
that section should be dismissed based on sovereign immunity. The court, nonetheless, assumes
without deciding Plaintiff may be able to amend his Complaint to allege a cause of action for
damages against a party amenable to suit under §1983, or to add facts or jurisdictional allegations
sufficient to allege another cause of action amenable to suit in this court.
For the reasons above, the court adopts the Report as supplemented above, and dismisses
this case without prejudice. To afford Plaintiff an opportunity to attempt to cure deficiencies in
the existing Complaint, the court will delay entering judgment to give Plaintiff an opportunity to
amend his Complaint. Plaintiff shall have until January 12, 2018 to file an Amended Complaint
should he desire to do so. Failure to file an Amended Complaint will result in entry of judgment
dismissing this action without prejudice.

(4th Cir. 2002) (“While Heck dealt with a § 1983 claim for damages, the Court did not limit its
holding to such claims. And we see no reason why its rationale would not apply in a situation
where a criminal defendant seeks injunctive relief that necessarily implies the invalidity of his
conviction.”), partially abrogated on other grounds by Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521 (2011)
(holding state prisoner may seek DNA testing of crime-scene evidence in § 1983 action).
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
Senior United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
December 14, 2017

4