Legg v. Rhodes et al

Filing 53

ORDER denying 30 Motion for Reconsideration. The Court refers Plaintiff's motion to amend to the Magistrate Judge. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 12/11/2012.(abuc) Modified to edit text on 12/11/2012 (abuc).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

CHARLESTON DIVISION

)

Ronald L. Legg,

)
)

Plaintiff,

)
)

v.

)

No.4:12-cv-00811-RMG

)

Chief Rhodes, Horry County Police;
Det. Neil Frebowitz, Horry County Police;
Edward Chrisco, Public Defender;
W. Thomas Floyd, Public Defender;

)
)
)
)

ORDER

)

Defendants.

)
)
)

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs motion under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59, requesting that this Court alter or amend its order dismissing Plaintiff s claims against
Defendants Chrisco and Floyd without prejudice and without issuance of process, and dismissing
Plaintiffs claim for return of or reimbursement for his personal property, as well as his claim
requesting that the Court order a police report, without prejudice. (Dkt. No. 30). Plaintiff also
moves to amend his complaint. (ld)
In its earlier order, the Court found that "Plaintiff has not alleged any actions taken by
Defendant Chrisco, and the only actions (or inactions) alleged with regard to Defendant Floyd relate
to his role as Plaintiffs lawyer," a role not covered under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Dkt. No. 25 at 3).
With respect to Plaintiffs claim for loss of personal property, the Court concluded that state law
provided an adequate postdeprivation remedy, such that § 1983 relief was not appropriate. (ld)
Finally, the Court concluded that Plaintiff did not possess standing to request that a police report be
created for the events he alleges in his complaint. (Id at 4).

In this motion, Plaintiff now contends that:

even though W. Thomas Floyd may not have, or, is not acting under the color oflaw
as it is to understand that definition on its surface, yet, more directly understood by
the court appointed attorney by his actions, is a necessary contiguous agent of the
State's Social Control pogrom, as contracted by the State per his conduct. By
willingly engaging in compliant underhanded state psychological pogroms that have
manifested in actions of conflict of interest, designed to separate clear distinctions
from descriptive harm, through a bifurcated system that is designed to elude U.S.
Constitutional safeguard perception by psychological Legerdemain, to conquest
through onerous convention. This is a new era in interpretation I do realize ....
(Dkt. No. 30 at 3). Plaintiff thus argues that, when Defendant Floyd acted as his attorney and
allegedly "conspired to manipUlate other procedural and substantive rights," he was "clothed in the
authority of the state," and should therefore be subject to § 1983. (Id. at 9).
"Motions under Rule 59 are not to be made lightly." Reyes v. Jeffcoat, No. 3:12-cv-298,
2012 WL 4097268, at *1 (D.S.C. Sept. 18,2012). They should be granted only for three reasons:
(1) to follow an intervening change in controlling law; (2) on account of new evidence; or (3) to
correct clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice." fd. (citing Hutchinson v. Staton, 994 F.2d
1076, I 081 (4th Cir. 1993»; see also United States ex rei. Becker v. Westinghouse Savannah River

Co., 305 F 3d 284, 290 (4th Cir. 2002) ("Mere disagreement does not support a Rule 59(e) motion.").
Plaintiffs motion advances the third reason, essentially arguing that the demands ofjustice require
a more expansive interpretation of § 1983.
The Court has reviewed the reasoning of its earlier order. The reasoning fits squarely within
the existing § 1983 case law. The Court also finds that revisiting the order is not necessary to
prevent a manifest injustice. Plaintiff has therefore failed to meet the high burden under Rule 59.
As Plaintiff s motion to amend appears to relate to his claims against the remaining Defendants, the
Court refers that motion to the Magistrate Judge.

For the reasons given, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs motion forreconsideration and REFERS
Plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint to the Magistr

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

Charleston, South Carolina
December {L, 2012

-3­