Whaley v. Licurs
4:24-cv-05566
D.S.C.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Plaintiff James Carl Whaley, a civil detainee at Aiken County Detention Center, filed an amended complaint alleging violations of his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- The case was referred to a Magistrate Judge for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation ("Report").
- The Magistrate Judge recommended that most of Whaley's claims be dismissed, with a few exceptions where claims proceeded against specific defendants.
- Whaley filed objections to the Report, challenging recommendations on claims and matters such as access to legal resources, medical care, disciplinary actions, and appointment of counsel.
- The District Court reviewed claims de novo in response to specific objections, and otherwise for clear error, ultimately partially agreeing and partially disagreeing with the Magistrate Judge.
- Certain claims and defendants were dismissed, while some claims would proceed to service of process against named defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ACSO & GHA are "persons" under § 1983 | Monell applies; denied biopsy | Not "persons"; no policy pleaded | Not persons; dismissed |
| Disciplinary segregation was unconstitutional | Violated due process; hardship | No constitutional violation | Stated plausible claim; claim proceeds |
| Custody/classification impacted civil proceedings | Affected mental health review | No right to classification | No right; claim dismissed |
| Medical care (denial of biopsy, two mats/snack bag) | Policy prevented care; Monell | No constitutional issue | Denial of care by Gallam proceeds; rest dismissed |
| Opening of mail outside presence | Violation of rights | No injury alleged | Dismissed; no cognizable injury |
| Lack of access to law library/caselaw | Needs access for legal claims | Had attorney; no injury | No actual injury shown; claim dismissed |
| Medical records disclosed (HIPAA/privacy) | Unlawful seizure/disclosure | No right of action under HIPAA | No private action under HIPAA; waived in litigation |
| Appointment of counsel | Complexity & lack of capacity | Not satisfied | Denied; no exceptional circumstances at this time |
| In Forma Pauperis fee assessed | Not a prisoner, shouldn’t owe | Fee applies | Fee is correct per statute |
| Request for injunction/TRO | Not fully argued | No showing of Winter factors | Denied; insufficient basis presented |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (final review authority lies with the district court on magistrate reports)
- Monell v. Dep't of Social Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability under § 1983 requires policy/custom)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (pretrial detainees are protected from punishment without due process)
- Dilworth v. Adams, 841 F.3d 246 (disciplinary segregation as punishment implicates due process for pretrial detainees)
- Incumaa v. Stirling, 791 F.3d 517 (no constitutional right to inmate custody classification)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (standard for preliminary injunction)
- Lytle v. Doyle, 326 F.3d 463 (municipal liability under § 1983 requires constitutional violation via official policy/custom)