Opinion
Civil Action 4:22-cv-0639-TLW-TER
01-26-2023
KATHY JUANITA REAVES, Plaintiff, v. CPL. CHARLES M. DICKENS, Individually, SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY PATROL, SOUTH CAROLINA LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, MARLBORO COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, and COUNTY OF MARLBORO, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Thomas E. Rogers, III United States Magistrate Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant Charles M. Dickens removed this action to this Court from the Court of Common Pleas, Marlboro County, South Carolina. Numerous motions are pending. Addressed herein is Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (ECF No. 134). All pretrial proceedings in this case were referred to the undersigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Local Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(e), DSC. This report and recommendation is entered for review by the district judge.
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On February 4, 2022, Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed an action in the Court of Common Pleas for Marlboro County against the defendants named herein, in which she states in paragraph 1, “This is a civil action in which plaintiff seeks relief for violation of the South Carolina Tort Claims Act, also known as S.C. Code § 15-78-10, and a violation of her rights secured by 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1988, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment [sic] to the United States Constitution.” Compl. ¶ 1 (ECF No. 1-1). The complaint includes six causes of action: (1) 42 U.S.C. § 1983, (2) Municipal and Supervisory Liability, (3) Conspiracy, (4) Constitutional Tort, (5) Negligent Hiring and Retention, (6) Respondeat Superior. Id.
Although the complaint attached to Dickens' Notice of Removal includes a filed date stamp, it does not include a state court case number. However, the Notice of Removal indicates that the underlying state court case number of 2022-CP-34-00034, and a review of the public index for that case number reveals that the complaint there is identical to the one attached to the Notice of Removal.
On March 2, 2022, Dickens removed the action to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441, asserting this court has federal question jurisdiction and supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1367.
On August 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed the present Motion to Remand. Therein, she argues that the case she filed in the Marlboro County Court of Common Pleas, case number 2022-CP-34-00034, seeks only relief under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act, and does not include federal cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because such a cause of action can only be brought against individuals and not state agencies, which is who she sued in the 2022-CP-34-00034 case. She argues that this court made a mistake by indicating she has asserted a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the 2022-CP-34-0034 case because the court is confusing this case with other cases originally filed by Plaintiff in this court. She asserts that she did not file the present case, 4:22-cv-639-TLW-TER, and is not asking this court for relief of any kind in this case.
III. DISCUSSION
Removal is proper when a “civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441. District courts have original jurisdiction of “civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Despite Plaintiff's arguments to the contrary, the complaint filed by Plaintiff in 2022-CP-34-00034 and removed to this court under the present case number, 4:22-cv-00639-TLW-TER, clearly alleges violations of his federal constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Therefore, Plaintiff's argument that this court somehow made a mistake by docketing this case as one including a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is without merit, and Plaintiff's Motion to Remand should be denied.
In her motion, Plaintiff also seeks to withdraw any Rule 56 motions she has filed in this action. However, she has filed no such motions in the present case.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, it is recommended that Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (ECF No. 134) be denied.