Tolliver v. Spartanburg, The County of et al

Filing 21

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION denying as moot 20 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Jeffery Dale Tolliver, adopting 15 Report and Recommendation, granted but moot 19 Motion to Amend/Correct filed by Jeffery Dale Tolliver, granted but moot 18 Motion to Amend/Correct filed by Jeffery Dale Tolliver. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 6/26/17. (alew, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
SPARTANBURG DIVISION
Jeffery Dale Tolliver,
Plaintiff,
v.
The County of Spartanburg,
Dept. of Social Services,
Defendants,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.: 7-16-cv-03539-JMC
ORDER

This matter is before the court pursuant to Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges’ Report and
Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed without prejudice and
without issuance and service of process. This review also considers Plaintiff’s Motions to Amend
and Motion for Summary Judgment, filed subsequent to his objections. For the following reasons,
this court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (ECF No. 15), GRANTS Plaintiff’s
Motions to Amend (ECF Nos. 17, 18), but finds the amendments have failed to cure the defects of
Plaintiff’s claim, DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) without prejudice and without
issuance and service of process, and therefore DENIES as MOOT Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 20)1.
The Magistrate Judge’s Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a
recommendation to this court, which has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final
determination remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The

1

ECF No. 20 is formally the motion for summary judgment, its contents are a request for the court to send him
copies of summary judgment documents; the actual request for relief may be found in ECF No. 18, which requests
formal legal advice on South Carolina state court appellate procedure and the removal of this case from the federal
court system. The first relief is inappropriate, the second is moot upon the dismissal of this case.

1 of 5

court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which
specific objections are made. Diamond v. Colonial Life and Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th
Cir. 2005).
The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 15.)
Plaintiff has filed timely objections. (ECF No. 17.)
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Jeffrey Dale Tolliver (“Plaintiff”) is an inmate incarcerated at Spartanburg County
Detention Center, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. On October 31, 2016, Plaintiff filed a
§ 1983 civil rights claim alleging violations of his constitutional rights by Spartanburg County and
the Department of Social Services. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff is serving a six-month sentence for
failure to pay child support, with 60 days suspended conditional upon the payment of $2,500.00
within the first 30 days. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) Plaintiff alleges he paid $300.00, but was unable to pay
more due to financial hardships, and was at that time incarcerated until Plaintiff could pay
$3,164.95. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff argues that his confinement violates his Eighth Amendment
rights and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, as he is being incarcerated for civil debts in
the same housing as criminals who have committed unspecified “far worse offenses.” (ECF No.1
at 3.) Plaintiff requests that his sentencing be overturned and that the amount he owes should be
written off as a civil judgment. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff also requests that this court advise the
Spartanburg County Court (a state court within the Seventh Circuit of the South Carolina
Judiciary) to develop a work-release alternative to imprisonment for debtors (ECF No. 1 at 4.)
II. RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff filed his Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 for indigent plaintiffs. A district court
may dismiss a case where the complaint fails to state a claim, or where complaint is deemed

2 of 5

frivolous or malicious. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii). A finding of frivolity can be made
where the complaint lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31
(1992). A claim based on a meritless legal theory may be dismissed sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B).
A federal court must give a pro se litigant’s filings liberal construction in order to allow
for the development of a meritorious case where one can be found. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.
89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). A pro se complaint, regardless of how inartfully pled it may be, must
be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Estelle v. Gamble,
429 U.S. 97, 111 (1976). The court should analyze a complaint under the assumption that all of
the allegations are true. Bell AtlanticCorp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The mandated
liberal construction means that if the court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim
on which a plaintiff could prevail, it should do so. However, the requirement for liberal
construction does not allow a court to ignore a clear failure to allege facts that set forth a valid
claim currently cognizable in a federal district court. Weller v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387,
390-91 (4th Cir. 1990.)
“A United States District Court has no authority to review final judgments of a state court
in judicial proceedings.” D.C. Cir. v. Feldman, 460, U.S. 462, 482 (1983). In Exxon Mobil Corp.
v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., the Supreme Court has clarified that the scope of the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine “is confined to cases brought by state-court losers…inviting district court review and
rejection of those judgments.” 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint is a challenge
to the judgment of a South Carolina family court, and the proceedings within and punishment
imposed by said state court. (ECF No. 15.) Therefore, Magistrate Judge Hodges recommends
Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.

3 of 5

III. OBJECTIONS AND AMENDMENTS
Plaintiff objects generally and non-specifically on the grounds that the ratified laws of state
bodies are subject to the federal government and the United States Constitution (including the
Eighth Amendment). Plaintiff seeks to amend, accepting dismissal of his request for release and
reiterating his requests that this court advise the Spartanburg Court to develop a work-release
program and to overturn his state sentence on constitutional grounds. (ECF No. 17 at 2.) Plaintiff
further seeks to amend requesting declaratory judgment for the above. (ECF No. 17 at 3.) Plaintiff
objects to the grounds, asking, in spite of the inability for this court to act that “the Federal
Court…review rulings by the State Courts” and declare his rights in dealing with the family courts
and define how the government bodies that govern the child support system intertwine. (ECF No.
17.) Plaintiff cites to Davari v. Va. Dep’t of Transp. 434 F.3d 712 (4th Cir. 2006) and Monell v.
Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) as applicable exceptions, but they are not, as both Davari
and Monell are federal employment suits against a governmental department run by the state and
neither case addresses pleading for relief from an actual prior decision of the state court as is the
case before this court today. (ECF Nos. 17 at 3, 18 at 2.)
Plaintiff’s objections are insufficiently specific to warrant de novo review of this case
pursuant to Rule 72(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation does not contain clear error and is therefore ADOPTED. Plaintiff’s amendments
to his original complaint are GRANTED but MOOT as they fail to cure the deficiencies of
Plaintiff’s Complaint. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice and without
issuance and service of process, as such, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED
as MOOT.

4 of 5

With regard to Plaintiff’s request for clarification regarding “intertwinement”, here there
is no intertwinement beyond Plaintiff’s attempts to have this federal district court reverse a prior
state judgment. (ECF No. 18 at 1.) The family court in Spartanburg is entirely state-run and any
ruling on the part of this court which would reverse their holding would be unconstitutional under
the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine. Plaintiff is respectfully advised to research his avenue for appeal
in the South Carolina state court system. It would neither be prudent nor appropriate for this court
to advise the Plaintiff further on this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
June 26, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina

5 of 5