Johnson v. 3rd Judicial Circuit of South Carolina et al

Filing 15

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The Magistrate Judges Report and Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. This action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 06/10/2010. (dsto, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) ) P l a in tif f , ) v. ) ) T h ird Judicial Circuit of South Carolina; ) B a il Bondsman Raymond Johnson; Bail ) B o n d sm an Jamie Smith; and Williamsburg ) C o u n t y Detention Center, ) ) D e f e n d a n ts . ) ______________________________________ ) C a s e y Earl Johnson, C/A No. 4:10-887-JFA-TER

ORDER

T h e pro se plaintiff, Casey Earl Johnson, is a state pretrial detainee at the W illia m s b u rg County Detention Center. He initiated this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 a lle g in g violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause; injuries resulting from his arrest; and lack o f access to law books. T h e Magistrate Judge assigned to this action 1 has prepared a Report and R e c o m m e n d a tio n wherein he suggests that this court should summarily dismiss the c o m p lain t. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this m a tte r, and the court incorporates such without a recitation. T h e plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and R e c o m m e n d a tio n which was entered on the docket on April 28, 2010. The plaintiff did not

The Magistrate Judge's review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02. 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. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1

1

f ile any objections to the Report. A s the Magistrate Judge properly notes, it clearly appears that all of the defendants n a m e d in the present action are not amenable to suit in United States District Court under 42 U .S .C . § 1983. The two bail bondsmen named as defendants have not acted under color of s ta te law, a prerequisite for a § 1983 claim. With regard to the remaining defendants, the T h i rd Judicial Circuit of South Carolina and the Williamsburg County Detention Center, are n o t "persons" subject to suit under § 1983. There being no viable defendants in this case su b ject to the claims set out in the complaint, the court will affirm the Magistrate Judge's s u g g e stio n that this action be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service o f process. A lth o u g h the case will be dismissed pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's re c o m m e n d a tio n , one point of clarification bears mention. The Magistrate Judge is of the o p in io n that the plaintiff's Double Jeopardy claim is not viable because the pending state c o u rt proceedings against the defendant have not accrued. The Magistrate Judge thus re c o m m e n d s that under the doctrine announced in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), th is action should be dismissed because the underlying criminal case has not proceeded to c o n c lu s io n and thus no cause of action has accrued. It is not at all clear to this court whether the plaintiff seeks an injunction, prohibiting th e current charges against him in state court from going forward under the Double Jeopardy C la u s e , or rather seeks damages for a past violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. A c a re f u l reading of the pro se complaint in this case does not yield an answer to this question.

2

G e n e ra lly, when a complaint attacks the fact or duration of confinement, the a p p ro p ria te remedy is a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, not a claim under 42 U .S .C . § 1983. In any event, the matter must be dismissed because there are no viable d e f en d a n ts , and the court need not reach the question of whether the case could proceed f o rw a rd on a claim for injunctive relief only. F o r the foregoing reasons, and with the slight exception noted above, the Magistrate J u d g e 's Report and Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. This action is d i sm is s e d without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED.

J u n e 10, 2010 C o lu m b ia , South Carolina

J o s e p h F. Anderson, Jr. U n ite d States District Judge

3