Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Flowers v. State, South Carolina Department of Corrections

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Anderson/Greenwood Division

May 13, 2015

Carmichael T. Flowers, Plaintiff,
State of South Carolina, South Carolina Department of Corrections, et al., Defendants.


JACQUELYN D. AUSTIN, Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the Court on a motion to remand filed by Plaintiff. [Doc. 12.] Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C., this magistrate judge is authorized to review all pretrial matters in cases filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and to submit findings and recommendations to the District Court.

On or about April 30, 2014, [1] Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this action against Defendants in the Court of Common Pleas for Marlboro County, South Carolina. [Doc. 1-1 at 1-14.] Plaintiff amended his Complaint on February 6, 2015. [Doc. 1-1 at 24-34.] On February 19, 2015, Defendants removed the action to this Court, alleging that Plaintiff was seeking relief for alleged "violations of the laws of this State and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments" pursuant to "both federal and state constitution(s)" along with federal and state statutes and authorities. [Doc. 1.]

On June 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion objecting to the removal of his complaint to federal court and seeking to remand the matter back to state court. [Doc. 12.] Plaintiff contends he is seeking relief under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act, "State Statutorial [sp] Laws Authorities, " and the Constitution. [ Id. ¶ 2.] Plaintiff also contends that a "federal question" arising from a state case must be first presented to the state court for decision. [ Id. ¶ 6.] Defendants contend, however, that Plaintiff's claims in this case are derived from federal law and this case is properly removed to federal court. [Doc. 13 at 2.]


Plaintiff styles his complaint as a "Tort Claim Complaint" pursuant to the South Carolina Tort Claims Act, SC Code Ann. § 15-78-120, alleging procedural due process violations, substantive due process violations, and deprivation of property without due process of law. [Doc. 1-1 at 24.] Plaintiff alleges that on January 8, 2014, he was called into Warden Eagleton's office, shown numerous complaints he had filed regarding cold food being served, a lack of recreation, and a dysfunctional medical department, and told by Warden Eagleton that "I'm sick of you, " and "I'm going to find you a new home." [ Id. at 26 ¶ 9.] Plaintiff alleges that on January 16, 2014, he was awakened, asked to get dressed and told to report to operations. [ Id. at 27 ¶ 10.] After eating breakfast, Plaintiff claims he was told he was being transferred to Ridgeland Correctional Institute ("Ridgeland") and provided his personal hygiene items, but he was told by Lt. Martin that he was not getting his personal property. [ Id. at 27 ¶¶ 11-12.] Upon his arrival at Ridgeland, Plaintiff discovered he was missing a number of personal items which he outlined in Exhibit 2 to his complaint. [ Id. at 28 ¶ 14.]

Plaintiff is suing for civil conspiracy, breach of duty of care, misappropriation of assets property, misconduct, illegal taking of personal property, failure to adhere to established policies and guidelines, and failure to perform ministerial duties. [ Id. at 28 ¶ 15.] In a first cause of action (Denial of Due Process), Plaintiff alleges violation of state laws, as well as the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. [ Id. at 28-29 ¶ 16.] In a second cause of action (Violation of Substantive Due Process), Plaintiff alleges violations of "both state and federal constitutions." [ Id. at 29 ¶ 18.] In a third cause of action (Unconstitutional Seizure of Personal Property), Plaintiff alleges violations of "state and federal constitutional rights and other rules, regulations and laws." [ Id. at 30 ¶ 20.] Plaintiff seeks a total of $75, 235 in actual damages. [ Id. at 32.]


Liberal Construction of Pro Se Complaint

Plaintiff brought this action pro se, which requires the Court to liberally construe his pleadings. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Loe v. Armistead, 582 F.2d 1291, 1295 (4th Cir. 1978); Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Haines, 404 U.S. at 520. Even under this less stringent standard, however, the pro se complaint is still subject to summary dismissal. Id. at 520-21. The mandated liberal construction means only that if the court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, it should do so. Barnett v. Hargett, 174 F.3d 1128, 1133 (10th Cir. 1999). A court may not construct the plaintiff's legal arguments for him. Small v. Endicott, 998 F.2d 411, 417-18 (7th Cir. 1993). Nor should a court "conjure up questions never squarely presented." Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).

Requirements for a Cause of Action Under § 1983

Section 1983 provides a private cause of action for plaintiffs alleging constitutional violations by persons acting under color of state law. Section 1983 provides, in relevant part,

[e]very person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State... subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or any person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.