Flowers v. South Carolina, State of et al

Filing 56

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, adopting the Report 45 Accordingly, the court GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion to Amend 28 , and DENIES Defendants Summary Judgment 25 and Plaintiffs Motion for an Extension 40 as moot. Further, this action is REMANDED to the Marlboro County Court of Common Pleas. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 11/7/2015. (gpre, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION

Carmichael T. Flowers,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
State of South Carolina;
)
South Carolina Department of
)
Corrections; Byran P. Sterling;
)
Willie L. Eagleton; Sgt. C. Hooper;
)
Corr. Ofc. Washington; and Corr.
)
Ofc. Lt. Martin,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

C/A No. 8:15-706-TMC

ORDER

Plaintiff Carmichael T. Flowers (Flowers”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this
action in state court alleging claims for “violations of the laws of this State and the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments” pursuant to “both federal and state constitution(s).” (ECF No. 1-1 at
29, 30). The Defendants State of South Carolina, South Carolina Department of Corrections,
Byran P. Sterling, Willie L. Eagleton, Sergeant C. Hooper, Correctional Officer Washington,
and Correctional Officer Lt. Martin (herein referred to collectively as “Defendants”) timely
removed this action to this court. (ECF No. 1).
Flowers filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint and to Remand (ECF No. 28).
Defendants filed a Response Opposing the Motion to Amend and to Remand (ECF No. 29), and
Flowers filed a Reply (ECF No. 39). Defendants also filed a Motion for Summary Judgement
(ECF No. 25), and Flowers filed a Response Opposing Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 43).1

Plaintiff also filed a motion for an extension of time within which to respond to
Defendants’ Summary Judgement Motion. (ECF No. 40). Subsequently, Plaintiff filed his
1

Before the court is the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”),
recommending that Flowers’ Motion to Amend be granted, this action be remanded to state
court, and Defendants’ Summary Judgement Motion be deemed moot. (ECF No. 45). Defendants
timely filed objections to the Report. (ECF No. 48).2
I. Facts/Background
As noted above, Flowers initially filed this action in state court on April 30, 2014.
Defendants filed a motion for a more definite statement, which the state court granted, and
Flowers was ordered to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 1-1 at 21-22). Specifically,
Flowers was ordered to “indicate precisely whether he is seeking relief pursuant to the South
Carolina Torts Claims Act (“SCTCA”), 42 U.S.C. §1983, South Carolina common law, federal
common law, and/or some combination thereof.” (ECF No. 1-1 at 22). Thereafter, on February
6, 2015, Flowers filed an Amended Complaint in which he alleged that Defendants violated his
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, his “substantive due process rights of both federal and
state constitutions,” and state and federal constitutional rights. (ECF No. 1-1 at 29, 30). Based
upon the allegations in the Amended Complaint, Defendants removed the action to this court.
Flowers filed a Motion to Remand alleging in part that “a ‘federal questions’ arising from a state
case must first be presented to the state court for decision . . . ” (ECF No. 12). The magistrate
judge recommended that the motion to remand be denied and noted that, in filings with the court,

response. (ECF No. 43). As the court is remanding this action and denying Defendants’
summary judgment motion as moot, Plaintiff’s motion for an extension is also moot.
The magistrate judge's recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the
responsibility for making a final determination remains with the United States District Court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made. The court
may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the magistrate
judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
2

2

Flowers had stated that he wanted to bring his action pursuant to state law. (ECF No. 22 at 6
n.3). The magistrate judge further stated that “[i]n the event that [Flowers] truly intended to
bring this action under state law only, he may move to file a second Amended Complaint
omitting the federal causes of action, and to remand based on that pleading.” Id. Neither party
filed any objections to the Report and it was adopted by the court on June 8, 2015. (ECF No. 36).
On June 1, 2015, Flowers filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint and to Remand. (ECF
No. 28). Defendants filed a response stating they did not oppose Flower’s Motion to Amend, but
they opposed any remand (ECF No. 29), and Flowers filed a Reply (ECF No. 39). Defendants
also filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on June 1, 2015. (ECF No. 25).
II. Discussion
In her Report, the magistrate judge recommends that the court grant Flowers’ Motion to
Amend his Complaint and to Remand, and deny Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as
moot. Defendants have timely filed objections and ask the court to deny Flowers’ Motion to
Remand.
The court can certainly understand Defendants’ frustration over Flowers’ claims. The
state court had previously ordered Flowers to file an Amended Complaint and indicate whether
he intended to bring his claims under federal law, and in response, Flowers filed an Amended
Complaint which clearly set forth federal claims. Further, in his first motion to remand, Flowers
stated that the state court was to decide federal claims first - not that he did not intend to bring
any federal claims. Then, in a letter to the court, Flowers for the first time unequivocally stated
that he did not want to raise any federal claims. (ECF No. 20). In response, based on the claims
set forth in the operative complaint, the magistrate judge recommended that Flowers’ first
motion to remand be denied, but noted that Flowers could file a motion to amend deleting the
federal claims and a motion to remand based on that complaint, (ECF No. 22 at 6 n.3), which is

3

exactly what Flowers did.
Defendants acknowledge that the court has discretion to either remand or retain a case
when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” See 28 U.S.C. §
1367(c)(3)(stating that district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a
claim if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction). Defendants contend
that they have spent considerable time litigating this matter in federal court, and note that
discovery has been completed and dispositive motions filed, and that a remand to state court
would basically restart this case causing Defendants to incur significant additional costs.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that “although [it has] consistently
acknowledged that district courts enjoy wide latitude in determining whether or not to retain
jurisdiction over state claims when all federal claims have been extinguished, at the same time,
[it has] taken heed of the Supreme Court's teaching (even before the enactment of § 1367 in
1990) that a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the
litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity in order to decide
whether to exercise jurisdiction over a case brought in that court involving pendent state-law
claims.” Arrington v. City of Raleigh, 369 Fed. Appx. 420, 423-24 (March 5, 2010)(internal
citations and quotation marks omitted).
“With all its federal questions gone, there may be the authority to keep [this case] in
federal court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(a) and 1441(c) (2000), but there is no good reason to do
so.” Waybright v. Frederick County, MD, 528 F.3d 199, 209 (4th Cir. 2008)(alteration added). In
its discretion, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining claims in this case. It
will not inconvenience the parties to litigate the remaining state claims in state court. There is
also no reason for this court to retain jurisdiction over state law claims which the state court is
more suited to hear.

4

III. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the court adopts the Report (ECF No. 45) Accordingly, the court
GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (ECF No. 28), and DENIES Defendants’ Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 25) and Plaintiff’s Motion for an Extension (ECF No. 40) as moot. Further,
this action is REMANDED to the Marlboro County Court of Common Pleas.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge

Anderson, South Carolina
November 9, 2015

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3
and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

5