Court Opinion

ID: 9895150
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-04 21:00:44.948297+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:59.925382
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2157      Doc: 30         Filed: 11/03/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-2157

        KING GRANT-DAVIS,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        ALAN WILSON, South Carolina Attorney General; MARK KEEL, Chief of the
        South Carolina Law Enforcement Division; MERRICK B. GARLAND, United
        States Attorney General; MARCIA L. FUDGE, United States Secretary of
        Department of Housing and Urban Development,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:19-cv-00392-DCN)

        Submitted: September 21, 2023                                Decided: November 3, 2023

        Before GREGORY and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        King Grant-Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina;
        Leon David Leggett, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH
        CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2157       Doc: 30           Filed: 11/03/2023   Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               King Grant-Davis filed a second amended complaint raising facial and as-applied

        challenges to the South Carolina Sex Offender Registry Act (“SORA”), S.C. Code Ann.

        §§ 23-3-400 to -555 (2007 & Supp. 2022), the federal Sex Offender Registration and

        Notification Act, 34 U.S.C. §§ 20901-20962, and related federal laws. After Defendants

        moved to dismiss, Grant-Davis moved to amend or correct his second amended complaint

        and for partial summary judgment. The magistrate judge denied the motion to amend or

        correct and recommended granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss and denying Grant-

        Davis’ motion for partial summary judgment. Over Grant-Davis’ objections, the district

        court accepted the recommendation of the magistrate judge, dismissed Grant-Davis’

        second amended complaint, and denied as moot his motion for partial summary judgment.

        The court also denied Grant-Davis’ motion to reconsider the magistrate judge’s order

        denying Grant-Davis’ motion to amend or correct the second amended complaint. We

        dismiss in part and affirm in part.

               In Powell v. Keel, the Supreme Court of South Carolina held that “SORA’s lifetime

        registration requirement is unconstitutional absent any opportunity for judicial review to

        assess the risk of re-offending.” 860 S.E.2d 344, 352 (S.C. 2021). The court, however,

        “reserve[d] the effective date of this opinion for twelve (12) months from the date of filing

        to allow the General Assembly to correct the deficiency in the statute regarding judicial

        review.” Id. Because Grant-Davis raised a similar challenge to SORA, we placed his

        appeal in abeyance for the effective date of Powell or until the South Carolina General

        Assembly amended SORA consistent with Powell.

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2157      Doc: 30          Filed: 11/03/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

               The South Carolina General Assembly acted after Powell, and SORA now provides

        that a sex offender may apply to be removed from the registry and outlines a process of

        judicial review if that application is denied. See S.C. Code Ann. § 23-3-462 to -463.

        Because the South Carolina General Assembly has remedied the constitutional defect in

        SORA identified in Powell, we conclude that this issue is moot. See Cela v. Garland,

        75 F.4th 355, 360 (4th Cir. 2023) (“A case becomes moot when it is impossible for a court

        to grant any effectual relief to the prevailing party.” (internal quotation marks omitted));

        Eden, LLC v. Justice, 36 F.4th 166, 170 (4th Cir. 2022) (“[A] case may become moot after

        entry of a district court’s judgment and while an appeal is pending.”). We therefore dismiss

        for lack of jurisdiction Grant-Davis’ appeal of the district court’s dismissal of this portion

        of Count 4. See Cela, 75 F.4th at 360.

               Finding no reversible error, we affirm the remainder of the district court’s judgment.

        Grant-Davis v. Wilson, No. 2:19-cv-00392-DCN (D.S.C. Sept. 20 & 27, 2021). We

        dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

        presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

        process.

                                                                               DISMISSED IN PART,
                                                                                AFFIRMED IN PART

                                                      3