Gordon v. Hayes et al

Filing 19

ORDER adopting 10 Report and Recommendation that this action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Plaintiff's 14 Motion to amend complaint is DENIED as futile and Plaintiff's 17 Motion to change venue is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 4/7/14. (kmca)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Antonio Gordon, #259798, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Honorable John C. Hayes, III, Associate Judge,
York County Circuit Court, individually and in
their official capacity; and the State of South
Carolina, individually and in their official
capacity,
Defendants.
_______________________________________

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

C/A No. 8:14-359-JA-JDA

ORDER

The pro se plaintiff, Antonio Gordon, is an inmate with the South Carolina
Department of Corrections. He brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 contending
that the defendants violated his civil rights in connection with his guilty plea to a state charge
of murder in 1999. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, a hearing before
the Family Court, record expungement, and costs.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and

1

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 and Recommendation 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1

Recommendation and opines that the § 1983 action should be summarily dismissed. The
Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court
incorporates such without a recitation.
The Magistrate Judge opines that the State of South Carolina is immune from suit
under the Eleventh Amendment; Judge Hayes has absolute judicial immunity from suit
pursuant to Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991); this action is barred under Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994); and plaintiff cannot represent other inmates in a class
action.
Plaintiff generally objects to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions as to judicial
immunity and the bar to suit under the holding of Heck. The court has reviewed the
objections de novo and finds them to be without merit. Accordingly, the objections are
overruled.
Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint to remove the State
of South Carolina as a party. He also seeks to add as party defendants two other persons,
Detective Jerry Waldrop and Detective Derrick Williams. The plaintiff’s motion to amend
his complaint (ECF No. 14) is denied as futile. See Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 426 (4th
Cir. 2006).
Additionally, plaintiff filed a motion to change venue to the appropriate court in York
County “because this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Heck.” This

2

court has no authority to transfer a case that has been summarily dismissed to a state court.
Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to change venue (ECF No. 17) is denied.
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation, and the objections thereto, the court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation is proper and incorporates it herein by reference. Accordingly, this action
is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

April 7, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina

3