Hutto et al v. South Carolina Retirement System, The et al

Filing 48

ORDER denying 45 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 4/4/2013.(hcic, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Gail M. Hutto, Debra J. Andrews, Elizabeth
W. Hodge, Margaret B. Lineberger, Lynn
R. Rogers, Nancy G. Sullivan, Jane P.
Terwilliger, Julian W. Walls, and all others
similarly situated,

)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
The South Carolina Retirement System, the
)
Police Officers Retirement System, the
)
South Carolina Retirement Systems Group
)
Trust, Mark Sanford, Governor of South
)
Carolina, in his official capacity as ex officio
)
Chairman of the South Carolina Budget and
)
Control Board, Converse Chellis, Treasurer
)
of the State of South Carolina, in his official
)
capacity as an ex officio member of the South
)
Carolina Budget and Control Board, Richard
)
Eckstrom, Comptroller General of the State
)
of South Carolina, in his official capacity as
)
an ex officio member of the South Carolina
)
Budget and Control Board, Hugh K.
)
Leatherman, Chairman of the South Carolina )
Senate Finance Committee, in his official
)
capacity as an ex officio member of the South )
Carolina Budget and Control Board, Daniel
)
T. Cooper, Chairman of the South Carolina
)
House of Representatives Ways and Means
)
Committee, in his official capacity as
)
an ex officio member of the South Carolina
)
Budget and Control Board, Frank Fusco, in his )
official capacity as Executive Director of the
)
South Carolina Budget and Control Board, and )
Peggy G. Boykin, in her official capacity as
)
Director of the Retirement Division of the
)
South Carolina Budget and Control Board,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________
)

Civil Action No.: 4:10-cv-02018-JMC
ORDER AND OPINION

This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion for Reconsideration [Dkt. No.
45] the September 27, 2012, Order [Dkt. No. 43] dismissing Plaintiffs’ complaint.
1

The

procedural history and relevant facts of this case are set forth in detail in the court’s Order and are
incorporated herein.
A court may alter or amend a judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure if the movant shows either (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) new
evidence that was not available at trial; or (3) that there has been a clear error of law or a manifest
injustice. Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp., 599 F.3d 403, 407 (4th Cir. 2010).
Plaintiffs assert that the court erred in dismissing its claims for declaratory and injunctive
relief against the individual Defendants serving in their official capacity. Specifically, Plaintiffs
argue that the court made a clear error of law when it stated in a footnote that “[b]ecause Plaintiffs
seek monetary damages, the claims against the individual Defendants are also barred.” The court
finds no error in its holding.
The doctrine espoused in Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), provides that the Eleventh
Amendment does not preclude private individuals from bringing suit against State officials for
prospective injunctive or declaratory relief designed to remedy ongoing violations of federal law.
However, “[t]he Eleventh Amendment bars a suit against state officials when ‘the state is the real,
substantial party in interest.’” Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 101
(1984) (citations omitted). Moreover, “just because a private citizen's federal suit seeks
declaratory injunctive relief against State officials does not mean that it must automatically be
allowed to proceed under an exception to the Eleventh Amendment protection.” Bell Atl. Md.,
Inc. v. MCI Worldcom, Inc., 240 F.3d 279, 294 (4th Cir. 2001). Instead, the court “must evaluate
the degree to which a State's sovereign interest would be adversely affected by a federal suit
seeking injunctive relief against State officials.” Bragg v. W. Virginia Coal Ass'n, 248 F.3d 275,
293 (4th Cir. 2001).
Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief seeks “a preliminary and permanent injunction
against Defendant’s preventing from all time the enforcement of South Carolina Code sections
2

9-1-1790
0(C) and 9-11-90(4)(c) and compelling the imme
a
ediate return of all moni that have been
n
ies
required to forfeit to the Retireme Systems since July 1 , 2005.” Complaint, ¶ 74 [Dkt. No. 1, at
ent
unds paid int the Retire
to
ement Syste and in se
em,
ar
17]. In seeking the return of fu
eeking to ba the
ment of S.C. Code Ann. §§ 9-1-1790 (C) and 9- 11-90(4), w
0
which require Plaintiffs to pay
e
o
enforcem
into the Retirement System, Plain
R
S
ntiffs’ reques relief is undeniably monetary. Furthermor the
sted
re,
declarato and inju
ory
unctive relie sought would withd
ef
w
draw funds from or de
eny funds to the
o
Retireme System. Such action would ulti
ent
ns
imately impa the State treasury, the
act
ereby implic
cating
the immu
unity from su provided for by the Eleventh Am
uit
E
mendment.
For the forego
oing reasons the court DENIES Pla
s,
D
aintiffs’ Join Motion for Reconsider
nt
r
ration
[Dkt. No. 45].
IT IS SO OR
T
RDERED.

Unit States District Judge
ted
e

2
April 4, 2013
Florence, South Caro
olina

3