2:21-cv-01304
D.S.C.Aug 5, 2022Background
- In 1999 Jonathan Green (a juvenile) pleaded no contest in Virginia to sexual offenses; his family moved to Dorchester County, SC while he remained on probation and he was required to register as a sex offender in South Carolina.
- In 2015 Jonathan learned his name was removed from the public registry but later discovered it was moved to a more private registry; plaintiffs allege ongoing harms to reputation, travel, and business.
- Plaintiffs (Jonathan, Nathaniel Green (substituted by Mildred Green as estate representative), and JGCRE, Inc.) sued state officials in 2021 pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the South Carolina FOIA seeking damages and removal from the registry.
- Defendants moved to dismiss; the magistrate judge recommended dismissing most claims but permitting a § 1983 injunctive claim against SLED director Keel and a SCFOIA claim related to a 2020 request against SLED personnel.
- The district court adopted the R&R in part and departed in part: it dismissed all claims except the § 1983 prospective (injunctive) claim against Keel in his official capacity and dismissed the SCFOIA claims (without prejudice) for lack of waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1983 monetary damages claims against state officials are barred by the Eleventh Amendment | Green seeks monetary relief for constitutional violations | State officials/agency arms are immune under Eleventh Amendment | Monetary damages claims against state officials dismissed (Eleventh Amendment) |
| Whether Dorchester County sheriffs (Nash, Knight) are "arms of the state" for immunity purposes | Sheriffs acted as county/local actors and should not be immune | Sheriffs are state officers/agents and entitled to immunity (Ram Ditta factors) | Sheriffs are state actors and immune in official-capacity suits |
| Whether Ex parte Young permits injunctive relief and which defendants are proper Ex parte Young defendants | Plaintiffs seek removal of name and injunction against all named officials | Ex parte Young applies only to officers with enforcement authority/special relation to challenged statute | Only Keel (SLED director) plausibly has authority to grant prospective relief; others lack the required ‘‘special relation’’ |
| Whether SCFOIA claims may proceed in federal court and whom plaintiffs must sue | Plaintiffs brought SCFOIA claims against SLED employees for 2019 and 2020 denials | Defendants argue state immunity/SCTCA require suing the agency in state court; no federal-waiver for SCFOIA claims | SCFOIA claims dismissed without prejudice for lack of state consent to suit in federal court; must be pursued in state court |
| Whether plaintiffs may sue defendants in individual capacities or amend to add Dorchester County/others (Monell) | Plaintiffs request leave to add individual-capacity claims and Monell claims against county | Defendants note complaint pleads official-capacity claims and did not timely seek amendment | Court found claims pleaded against officials in official capacities; requests to amend unripe and not decided now |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (establishes prospective relief exception to Eleventh Amendment)
- Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity principles)
- Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (sovereign immunity against suits absent consent)
- Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (limits on federal jurisdiction over state law claims and Eleventh Amendment scope)
- Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (state officials sued in official capacity are barred from § 1983 monetary relief)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability under § 1983 requires policy/custom)
- Ram Ditta v. Maryland Nat. Capital Park & Planning Comm'n, 822 F.2d 456 (4th Cir.) (factors to determine whether entity is arm of the state)
- Cromer v. Brown, 88 F.3d 1315 (4th Cir.) (treats South Carolina sheriffs as state actors for Eleventh Amendment purposes)
- McBurney v. Cuccinelli, 616 F.3d 393 (4th Cir.) (discusses Ex parte Young and the ‘‘special relation’’ requirement)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard plead plausibility)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard and legal conclusions vs. factual allegations)