Wise v. Kendall
6:21-cv-00164
| D.S.C. | Aug 4, 2021Background
- Plaintiff Cederick Wise, a South Carolina Department of Corrections prisoner proceeding pro se, sued multiple SCDC officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged miscalculation of his sentence/maxout date.
- Wise alleges that on arrival at Lieber Correctional Institution an SCDC official (Ravenell) stated his maxout date was August 21, 2022, but he provided paperwork showing the correct date was August 17, 2021.
- He also alleges SCDC records incorrectly reflect a 30‑year sentence (instead of 21 years) for a kidnapping charge, affecting the overall sentence calculation.
- Wise sought $800,000 in damages and a permanent injunction directing defendants to correct his maxout date and follow their oaths.
- The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal without prejudice and without service: challenges to sentence start/maxout date must be raised via habeas, damages claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, and the court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over state‑law claims.
- The District Court adopted the Report and Recommendation and dismissed the complaint without prejudice and without issuance of service of process; plaintiff had not filed objections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper remedy for challenging sentence start/maxout date | Wise contends §1983 can remedy SCDC's miscalculation of his maxout date and obtain injunctive relief | Such claims effectively challenge the duration of confinement and must be brought in habeas corpus, not §1983 | Court held §1983 claim improper for altering sentence/maxout date; dismissal without prejudice (habeas is the proper vehicle) |
| Availability of money damages for sentence calculation errors | Wise seeks $800,000 in damages for mental and physical harm from the miscalculation | Damages that would imply invalidity or shorter confinement are barred by Heck v. Humphrey until underlying conviction/ sentence is invalidated | Court held damages claims are barred by Heck and thus not cognizable now |
| Supplemental jurisdiction over state‑law claims | Wise included state‑law claims arising from the same facts | Federal court should not retain supplemental jurisdiction once the federal claims are dismissed | Court abstained/declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed state claims without prejudice |
| Service of process and disposition | Wise requested relief against named officials | Defendants/Report urged dismissal without issuance of service because claims are not cognizable under §1983 | Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice and without issuance of service of process |
Key Cases Cited
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (damages claim that would imply invalidity of conviction or increased sentence is barred until conviction/sentence is invalidated)
- Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198 (4th Cir. 1983) (failing to object to a magistrate judge’s report limits the district court to a clear‑error review)
- Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (district court need only satisfy itself there is no clear error when no objections to a magistrate’s recommendation are filed)
- Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976) (magistrate reports carry no presumptive weight and district court retains responsibility for final determination)