Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Timpson v. Haley

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenville Division

August 24, 2017

JOHNNY TIMPSON, by and through his Conservator Sandra Timpson; and SANDRA TIMPSON, in her individual capacity, Plaintiffs,
v.
NIKKI HALEY, Governor of the State of South Carolina; ANDERSON COUNTY DISABILITIES AND SPECIAL NEEDS BOARD; HORACE PADGETT, Chairman of the Anderson County Disabilities and Special Needs Board; DALE THOMPSON, former Executive Director of the Anderson Disabilities and Special Needs Board; JOHN KING, Current Director of the Anderson Disabilities and Special Needs Board; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF DISABILITIES AND SPECIAL NEEDS; WILLIAM DANIELSON, Chairman DDSN Commission; BEVERLY BUSCEMI, Director of the South Carolina Department of Disabilities and Special Needs; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; CHRISTIAN SOURA, Director of the South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services; GREENVILLE COUNTY DISABILITIES AND SPECIAL NEEDS BOARD; UNKNOWN ACTORS at the Anderson Disabilities and Special Needs Board; UNKNOWN ACTORS at the Greenville County Disabilities and Special Needs Board and/or Thrive Upstate; TYLER REX, Director of the Anderson DSN Board; ALEXANDER MCNAIR, Chairman of the Board of Thrive Upstate, formerly known as the Greenville County Disabilities and Special Needs Board; JOHN COCCIOLONE, Director of Thrive Upstate; UNKNOWN ACTORS at the South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services; UNKNOWN ACTORS at the Department of Disabilities and Special Needs; and THRIVE UPSTATE, Defendants.

         MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT HALEY'S MOTION TO DISMISS, GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT HALEY'S MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE, DENYING DEFENDANT HALEY'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND HOLDING IN ABEYANCE INTERESTED PARTY THE UNITED STATES' MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

          MARY GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         In this action, Plaintiffs complain of Defendants' alleged violations of: the South Carolina Tort Claims Act, § 15-78-210; the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12188; the federal Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a); the South Carolina Administrative Procedures Act, SC Code Ann. § 1-23-310; the South Carolina Constitution separation of powers doctrine, SC Const. art. I, § 8; and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has jurisdiction over the matter under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367(a).

         The matter is before the Court for its consideration of Defendant Nikki Haley's motion to dismiss the action against her as per Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), Haley's motion to substitute party, Haley's motion for a protective order, and Interested Party the United States of America's motion for a protective order. Having reviewed the motions, the record, and the applicable law, it is the opinion of the Court Haley's motion to dismiss will be denied, Haley's motion to substitute party will be granted in part and denied in part, Haley's motion for protective order will be denied, and the United States' motion for a protective order will be held in abeyance.

         II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         The facts and allegations that are the basis of this lawsuit are well known by the parties. The Court, thus, need not recite them here.

         After Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint, Haley filed a motion to dismiss. Subsequent to Haley being confirmed to be the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, she filed a motion to substitute current Governor Henry McMaster in her place. Haley and the United States have also each filed separate motions for protective orders.

         Having been fully briefed on the relevant issues, the Court is prepared to adjudicate each of these motions.

         III. HALEY'S MOTION TO DISMISS

         A. Standard of Review

         A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) raises the fundamental question of whether a court is competent to hear and adjudicate claims. “Federal courts are courts of limited subject matter jurisdiction, and as such there is no presumption that the court has jurisdiction.” Pinkley, Inc. v. City of Fredrick, Md., 191 F.3d 394, 399 (4th Cir. 1999). Unless a matter involves an area of a federal court's exclusive jurisdiction, a plaintiff may bring suit in federal court only if the matter involves a federal question arising “under the Constitution, laws or treatises of the United States, ” 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or if “the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75, 000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different states, ” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). In reviewing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), the court is to “regard the pleadings' allegations as mere evidence on the issue, and may consider evidence outside the pleadings without converting the proceeding to one for summary judgment.” Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R.R. v. United States, 945 F.2d 765, 768 (4th Cir. 1991).

         The purpose of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, on the other hand, “is to test the sufficiency of a complaint.” Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243 (4th Cir. 1999). To survive a motion to dismiss, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require a complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). Rule 8(a) does not require “detailed factual allegations, ” but “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation, ” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 555 (2007)), to “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests, ” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 255 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). A claim is considered facially plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).

         In considering a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff's well-pled allegations are taken as true, and the complaint and all reasonable inferences are liberally construed in the plaintiff's favor. Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993). The Court may consider only the facts alleged in the complaint, which may include any documents either attached to or incorporated in the complaint, and matters of which the Court may take judicial notice. Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007). Although the Court must accept the plaintiff's factual allegations as true, any conclusory allegations are unentitled to an assumption of truth, and even those allegations pled with factual support need to be accepted only to the extent “the plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. In sum, the factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption all the allegations in the complaint are true, even if doubtful in fact. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.

         B. Contentions of the Parties

         In Haley's motion to dismiss, she avers the tort claims leveled against her are barred by the statute of limitations. Haley also maintains, as the then-Governor of South Carolina, she is not a proper defendant in this lawsuit because she had neither control nor enforcement rights over the state agencies, the State's Department of Disabilities and Special Needs and Department of Health and Human Services, which were responsible for Johnny Timpson's care. Haley further enounces, as the then-Governor, inasmuch as she was ...


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.