Calvin Henson v. SCDC, 28343

Background

The circuit court certified two Rule 23(a) classes of inmates who were sexually assaulted while in SCDC or SCDJJ custody from 2012 to the present. 1
The named plaintiffs alleged prison officials negligently failed to implement and enforce protective policies and provide sufficient staffing, causing the assaults. 2
Henson sought class certification for all custodial inmates who were rape or sexual-assault victims, with potentially tens of thousands of class members. 3
The circuit court found Rule 23(a) satisfied and defined two classes of victims of nonconsensual sexual battery. 4
The court of appeals dismissed the appeal as not immediately appealable, and this Court granted common-law certiorari to review the certification order. 5
The Supreme Court reversed, holding the class-action issues were overwhelmed by individualized inquiries and remanded for individual claims only. 6

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are interlocutory class-certification orders immediately appealable? 7	Henson sought review of the certification order.	SCDC and SCDJJ argued the order was appealable.	No; such orders are never immediately appealable to the court of appeals. 8
Does Rule 23(a) require common issues to dominate individualized issues? 9	Henson said common negligence issues justified class treatment.	SCDC and SCDJJ said individualized proof defeats class efficiencies.	Yes; common questions must be determinative and overshadow individualized issues. 10
Did Henson satisfy Rule 23(a) commonality for these assault classes? 11	Henson argued defendants' negligence was common to all members.	SCDC and SCDJJ argued membership, causation, and negligence were individualized.	No; the case would require many mini-trials and individualized proof. 12
Was the class definition unmanageable because membership depended on proving the claim? 13	Henson used assault victims as the class definition.	SCDC and SCDJJ argued this created fail-safe, unascertainable classes.	Yes in effect; membership required individualized findings of rape before class inclusion. 14
Do changes in PREA and facility-specific facts defeat classwide negligence? 15	Henson contended prison negligence was common across the class.	SCDC and SCDJJ argued standards varied by time, compliance, and facility.	Yes; varying PREA standards and facts undermined a single common negligence answer. 16

Key Cases Cited

State v. Price, 441 S.C. 423 (S.C. 2023) (common-law certiorari may correct legal error where a trial court exceeded its authority 17)
Hensley v. S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 429 S.C. 144 (S.C. 2020) (class certification orders are ordinarily not immediately appealable 18)
Salmonsen v. CGD, Inc., 377 S.C. 442 (S.C. 2008) (class certification orders are generally not immediately appealable and require notice/opt-out procedures 19)
Ferguson v. Charleston Lincoln Mercury, Inc., 349 S.C. 558 (S.C. 2002) (orders denying class certification are usually interlocutory and not immediately appealable 20)
Eldridge v. City of Greenwood, 308 S.C. 125 (S.C. 1992) (Rule 23 orders are interlocutory and immediately appealable only in certain circumstances 21)
Gardner v. South Carolina Department of Revenue, 353 S.C. 1 (S.C. 2003) (commonality requires significant common issues and a determinative critical issue 22)
Hurd v. Williamsburg County, 363 S.C. 421 (S.C. 2005) (proximate cause is an essential element in negligence cases 23)
Bramlette v. Charter-Med.-Columbia, 302 S.C. 68 (S.C. 1990) (causation-in-fact requires but-for causation 24)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2011) (commonality requires a common contention capable of classwide resolution 25)
Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 577 U.S. 442 (U.S. 2016) (predominance asks whether common issues outweigh individual ones in cohesive classes 26)
Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (U.S. 1997) (predominance concerns whether a class is sufficiently cohesive for representative adjudication 27)
Waller v. Seabrook Island Prop. Owners Ass'n, 300 S.C. 465 (S.C. 1990) (trial courts must apply a rigorous analysis to Rule 23 prerequisites 28)
Littlefield v. S.C. Forestry Comm'n, 337 S.C. 348 (S.C. 1999) (overruled to the extent it suggested a more expansive view of class action availability 29)