LaConey v. Wilson et al

Filing 12

ORDER adopting the 7 Report and Recommendation, dismissing Plaintiff's claims for equitable and injunctive relief without prejudice, and dismissing all claims for damages against Defendants with prejudice because they are immune from suit. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 4/18/2018. (bgoo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Glen Keith LaConey,

Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-850-CMC
Plaintiff,

vs.

ORDER

Alan McCrory Wilson; Kinli Abee; R. Knox
McMahon; Jocelyn Newman,
Defendants.
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
alleging violation of his constitutional rights in the state court where his criminal charges are being
adjudicated. ECF No. 1. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02
(B)(2)(d), D.S.C., the matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for
pre-trial proceedings. On April 5, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending this
matter be summarily dismissed without prejudice, and without issuance and service of process.
ECF No. 7. 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
on April 13, 2018. ECF No. 10.
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).
After considering de novo the record, the applicable law, the Report and Recommendation
of the Magistrate Judge, and Plaintiff’s objections, the court agrees with the Report’s
recommendation that the Complaint be dismissed.
In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges he was arrested in Richland County on July 3, 2014, and
charged with harassment and threatening the use of a destructive device against the Richland
County Judicial Center. ECF No. 1 at 101. Plaintiff was released on bond on October 3, 2014 and
indicted on November 12, 2014. Id. Although trials were set for December 7, 2015 and May 31,
2016, neither occurred. Instead, the state requested a competency examination and this was
granted on July 21, 2016. Id. Plaintiff’s bond was revoked, and he submitted to a competency
examination on August 1, 2016. After the examination, Plaintiff states the trial court refused to
release him on bond, and did not set a competency hearing date. On May 22, 2017, Judge
McMahon held a hearing on Plaintiff’s pro se motion, relieved his defense counsel, and appointed
new counsel. Id. at 12. On August 31, 2017, Judge Newman held a hearing on Plaintiff’s motion
for reinstatement of bond, which was denied.2 Id. A competency hearing was held on February

1

2

The page numbers cited correspond to the ones assigned at filing in the ECF system.

Plaintiff alleges he has been improperly held without bond after his competency examination in
2016. Id. at 12.
2

2, 2018, and Plaintiff was found competent to stand trial. Id. at 14. A trial date was set for the
week of June 11, 2018. Id.
Plaintiff filed a Petition for Original Jurisdiction and for Declaratory Judgment and Motion
to Relieve Counsel in the South Carolina Supreme Court in January 2018. Id. at 13. The Supreme
Court requested the State file a return, which it did on February 22, 2018, and, according to
Plaintiff, the Petition was dismissed. Id. at 15.
Plaintiff lodges mostly factual objections to the Report, noting facts he alleges were left
out of the Report and therefore “should be deemed admitted.” ECF No. 9. He argues all judicial
officers of the South Carolina Fifth Circuit trial court should be disqualified from his state court
matter due to his alleged threat against the courthouse. Id. at 3. He contends the state trial court
is violating his rights to Due Process and Equal Protection by refusing to order his release on bond
following completion of his competency evaluation on August 1, 2016. Id. at 4-5.

Regarding

his claims, Plaintiff states he has alleged numerous civil rights allegations and seeks to dismiss his
indictments, prevent his prosecution, and release from “unlawful detention.” Id. He alleges he
has suffered irreparable injury and has no adequate remedy at law in state court. He notes “[a]ll
of the within matters were raised to the South Carolina Supreme Court No. 2018-000025.” Id.
Plaintiff contends the judicial officers of the state trial court should be disqualified, and thus are
not protected by judicial immunity. Id. at 8.
The court finds Plaintiff’s objections unavailing. The court has reviewed the facts as
submitted by Plaintiff, who has alleged constitutional violations. However, relief for these alleged
violations is not available in this court for the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge. To the extent
3

Plaintiff seeks a writ of habeas corpus, he cannot obtain dismissal of an indictment or prevention
of prosecution through these means. This court will not interfere with a state criminal prosecution
due to the prohibition in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Although Plaintiff alleges he is
unable to raise these issues in state court because his appointed counsel refuses to do so, and he
cannot do so pro se due to the prohibition on hybrid representation, Plaintiff has in fact raised these
issues at the state trial and appellate levels. To the extent Plaintiff seeks damages against the
Defendants that is precluded by judicial and prosecutorial immunity.
Accordingly, the court adopts the Report by reference in this Order. Plaintiff’s claims for
equitable and injunctive relief are dismissed without prejudice. All claims for damages against
Defendants are dismissed with prejudice because they are immune from suit.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
Senior United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
April 18, 2018

4