Source: http://sc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190419_0001016.DSC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-02-28 07:48:34
Document Index: 529967619

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 636', '§ 1983', '§ 4', '§ 1983', '§ 15', '§ 1915']

Mario Antwan Lloyd (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this complaint against several Charleston County Detention Center employees, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.), the undersigned is authorized to review such complaints for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the district judge.
Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee held at Charleston County Detention Center (“CCDC”). [ECF No. 1 at 4]. Plaintiff alleges, while housed in CCDS Special Management Unit (“SMU”) from March 2, 2019 to March 17, 2019, defendants Roberts and Scott removed his personal belongings; defendants Sandova, McKeller, and Tipton punished him for speaking; and defendants Roberts, Scott, and Sandova unlawfully looked through his legal mail. [ECF No. 1 at 6-8]. In addition, Plaintiff challenges various conditions of his confinement, alleges racial discrimination, and asserts defendant Robinson has not responded to his grievances. Id. He has sued each defendant in his official capacity. [ECF No. 1 at 2-3]. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and termination of all responsible parties. [ECF No. 1 at 10].
The Eleventh Amendment provides, “[t]he Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” U.S. Const. amend. XI. The United States Supreme Court has long held the Eleventh Amendment also precludes suits against a state by one of its own citizens. See Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 662-63 (1974). This immunity extends not only to suits against a state per se, but also to suits against agents and instrumentalities of the state. Cash v. Granville Cnty. Bd. of Ed., 242 F.3d 219, 222 (4th Cir. 2001). Because the defendants in this case are employees of a South Carolina county, when acting in their official capacities, they are considered an arm of the state and not a “person” within the meaning § 1983. See Pennington v. Kershaw Cnty., S.C., No. 3:12-1509-JFA-SVH, 2013 WL 2423120, at *4 (D.S.C. June 4, 2013) (citing S.C. Code Ann. § 4-1-10 and applying the Eleventh Amendment to a county as “a political subdivision of the State”); Chisolm v. Cannon, C/A No. 4:02-3473-RBH, 2006 WL 361375, at *5-6 (D.S.C. Feb. 15, 2006) (finding Charleston County Detention Center entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity as an arm of the state); Cone v. Nettles, 417 S.E.2d 523, 525 (S.C. 1992) (employees of a county Sheriff are state officials); see also Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989) (“[N]either a state nor its officials acting in their official capacities are ‘persons' under § 1983.”). A state cannot, without its consent, be sued in a district court of the United States by one of its own citizens upon the claim that the case is one arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. Edelman, 415 U.S. at 663. The State of South Carolina has not consented to be sued in this case, see S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-20(e); thus, as arms of the state, the named defendants, in their official capacities, would be immune from a federal lawsuit under the Eleventh Amendment and Plaintiff's complaint is subject to summary dismissal.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Plaintiff may attempt to correct the defects in his complaint by filing an amended complaint by May 3, 2019, along with any appropriate service documents. Plaintiff is reminded an amended complaint replaces the original complaint and should be complete in itself. See Young v. City of Mount Ranier,238 F.3d 567, 572 (4th Cir. 2001) (“As a general rule, an amended pleading ordinarily supersedes the original and renders it of no legal effect.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, the undersigned will conduct screening of the amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended ...