Gold v. Hasty et al

Filing 65

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 46 MOTION to Amend/Correct, 50 MOTION to Amend/Correct, 53 MOTION for Discovery, 54 MOTION for Disclosure and to the extent they have not already responded, Defendants are directed to respond within the time limits prescribed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges.(lbak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Nathaniel Gold, #133617,
Plaintiff,
vs.
The State of South Carolina;
Calhoun County; Orangeburg
County; Charleston County; Aiken
County; Nicholas McCarley;
Vernetia Dozier, Director; Charles
Govan, Cpt.; Cpt. McClutchen; Lt.
Fisk; Lt. Rodan; Lt. Murdock; Sgt.
Hayward; Deputy M. Popenhagan,
Calhoun County Sheriff Office
Deputy; Kenneth Hasty; Lt.
Butler; Lt. Riddell; Lt. Hettich; Lt.
Butts; Sgt. Erikson; B. Belcher,
ACDC Deputy; Cpl. Doolittle; Dep.
Harron; Lt. Clamp; Dep. Merrick;
Nick Gallam; and Lt. Bowman,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 5:18-242-JMC-SVH

ORDER

Nathaniel Gold (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his
constitutional rights. All pretrial proceedings in this case were referred to the
undersigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civ.
Rule 73.02(B)(2)(f) (D.S.C.). This matter comes before the court on the
following motions filed by Plaintiff: (1) Motions to Amend [ECF Nos. 46, 50];

(2) Motion for Disclosure of Discovery [ECF No. 53]; and (3) Motion for
Disclosure of Expert Testimony [ECF No. 54].
I.

Motions to amend
Plaintiff’s motions seek to amend his original and first amended

complaint. For the reasons provided in the undersigned’s February 5 and
October 18, 2018 Report and Recommendations [ECF Nos. 7, 36], Plaintiff’s
proposed claims against defendants Kenneth Hasty, Theodore N. Lupton,
Mitchell E. Farley, and the State of South Carolina are futile.
Additionally, Plaintiff’s claim against Judge Maite Murphy is futile, as
it concerns Plaintiff's arrest on an allegedly unlawful bench warrant. It is
well-settled that judges have immunity from claims arising out of their
judicial actions. Mireless v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 12 (1991). Judicial immunity is
a protection from suit, not just from ultimate assessment of damages, and
such immunity is not pierced by allegations of corruption or bad faith. Id. at
11; see also Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356‒57 (1978) (“A judge will
not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was
done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority; rather, he will be subject
to liability only when he has acted in the ‘clear absence of all jurisdiction.’”).
Further, as these are Plaintiff’s fourth and fifth motions to amend his
complaint, such amendments are prejudicial to defendants. Plaintiff’s failure
to provide the reasons or the bases for his proposed amendments is improper.
2

Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, the court and the opposing
parties are not required to try to decipher the differences in multiple
proposed amended pleadings. For all of these reasons, Plaintiff’s motions to
amend [ECF Nos. 46, 50] are denied.
II.

Motions for disclosure of discovery and experts
Plaintiff’s motions for the disclosure of discovery [ECF No. 53] and of

experts [ECF No. 54] appear to be discovery requests. Pursuant to Rules 33
and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, interrogatories and requests
for production need not be filed with the court. Plaintiff’s motions are,
therefore, denied. It appears Defendants have separately been served with
the discovery requests. To the extent they have not already responded,
Defendants are directed to respond within the time limits prescribed by the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
February 11, 2019
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

3