Washington v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.

Eddie Washington, Plaintiff, v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Chad F. Wolf in his Official Capacity,U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Tony Pham in his Official Capacity,Attorney General, York County, York County Sheriff's Office, Sergeant Nicholas Schifferle as an employee of York County Sheriff's Office,Defendant.

C/A No.: 0:21-98-MGL-SVH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

March 3, 2021

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER

Eddie Washington ("Plaintiff") filed this suit on January 11, 2021, against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Chad F. Wolf in his official capacity, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"), Tony Pham in his official capacity, the Attorney General, York County, York County Sheriff's Office ("YCSO"), and YCSO employee Sergeant Nicholas Schifferle ("Schifferle"). In his amended complaint, Plaintiff asserts eleven causes of action that can be divided into three groups: (1) claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his constitutional rights (first, second, fourth, sixth, and eighth causes of action), (2) claims for violations of the South Carolina Constitution (third, fifth, seventh, and ninth causes of action), and (3) state-law claims for civil conspiracy (tenth cause of action) and conversion/claim and delivery (eleventh cause of action).

This matter comes before the court on the motions to dismiss and for protective order filed by York County and YCSO (collectively "Defendants"). [ECF Nos. 19, 20]. Defendants' motion to dismiss having been fully briefed [see ECF Nos. 22, 23], it is ripe for disposition.

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(f) (D.S.C.), this case has been assigned to the undersigned for all pretrial proceedings. Having carefully considered the parties' submissions and the record in this case, the undersigned grants Defendants' motion for protective order in part and recommends the district judge grant in part and deny in part Defendants' motion to dismiss.

I. Factual Background

Plaintiff alleges that on or about July 16, 2020, he was travelling south on Interstate 77 when he was stopped by Schifferle. [ECF No. 12 ¶ 14]. Schifferle advised Plaintiff he was being stopped for failure to use headlights when required. Id. ¶ 15. For an unknown reason, Schifferle called a drug dog out to the scene. Id. ¶ 16. Although no drugs were found, $55,140 was found in Plaintiff's vehicle and seized at the time of the traffic stop. Id. ¶¶ 16-17.

Plaintiff was not arrested and alleges that at no time prior, during, or after the seizure was he engaged in unlawful activity. Id. ¶ 18. The only citation he received was for failure to use headlights when required pursuant to S. C. Code Ann § 56-05-4450, a misdemeanor with a potential penalty of up to 30 days in jail and/or a fine up to $25. Id. ¶ 19.

Plaintiff alleges ICE is now in possession and control of the seized money, but was not involved in the traffic stop or present at the time of the seizure. Id. ¶¶ 20-21. Plaintiff alleges that, according to ICE, the money was seized pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1), 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1), and 18 U.S.C. § 1961 for conducting a financial transaction to promote a specified unlawful activity, but no unlawful activity has been alleged or specified. Id. ¶ 22.

II. Discussion

A. Standard on Motion to Dismiss

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) examines the legal sufficiency of the facts alleged on the face of the plaintiff's complaint. Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243-44 (4th Cir. 1999). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,570 (2007) ). The court is "not required to accept as true the legal conclusions set forth in a plaintiff's complaint." Edwards, 178 F.3d at 244. Indeed, "[t]he presence of a few conclusory legal terms does not insulate a complaint from dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) when the facts alleged in the complaint cannot support the legal conclusion." Young v. City of Mount Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 577 (4th Cir. 2001).

B. Analysis

1. Claims Brought Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

The Eleventh Amendment provides "[t]he Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." U.S. Const. Amend. XI. The United States Supreme Court has long held the Eleventh Amendment also precludes suits against a state by one of its own citizens. See Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 662-63 (1974). This immunity extends not only to suits against a state per se, but also to suits against agents and instrumentalities of the state. Cash v. Granville Cnty. Bd. of Ed., 242 F.3d 219, 222 (4th Cir. 2001).

Because YCSO is considered an arm of the state and not a "person" within the meaning of § 1983, Plaintiff cannot bring suit against YCSO formonetary damages. See Gulledge v. Smart, 691 F. Supp. 947, 954-55 (D.S.C. 1988) (addressing whether sheriffs in South Carolina are state or county officials); Cromer v. Brown, 88 F.3d 1315, 1332 (4th Cir. 1996) (holding that the Greenville County Sheriff, in his official capacity, was immune from suit for monetary damages under § 1983); Cone v. Nettles, 417 S.E.2d 523, 524-25 (S.C. 1992) (concluding that South Carolina sheriffs and their deputies are state officials for purposes of § 1983); McCall v. Williams, 52 F. Supp. 2d 611, 623, (D.S.C. 1999) ("[T]he Sheriff's Department, like the Sheriff, is an arm of the state and entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity."). Smith v. Carter, C/A No. 9:19-967-HMH-BM, 2019 WL 6532957, at *2 (D.S.C. Nov. 5, 2019) ("Further, even if an otherwise proper claim had been alleged against these Defendants, Defendant Charleston County Sheriff's Office and Defendant Sheriff Al Cannon (in his official capacity) are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from a suit for monetary damages because Sheriff's Departments in South Carolina are state agencies, not municipal departments, and Sheriffs and their deputies are state employees."), report and recommendation adopted, C/A No. 9:19-967-HMH-BM, 2019 WL 6524676 (D.S.C. Dec. 4, 2019).

Plaintiff incorrectly asserts that YCSO can be sued pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 under Supreme Court precedent. [ECF No. 22 at 3]. However,while counties can be subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 under what is commonly referred to as a Monell claim, South Carolina sheriff's offices cannot, as stated above. See Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 n.55 (1978) (noting that for purposes of § 1983, a person includes individuals and bodies politic and corporate).¹

Turning to Plaintiff's federal claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against York County, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim where he has alleged only that YCSO is a "division of Defendant York County" and that Schifferle "is an Agent and employee of Defendant County and/or Defendant Sheriff's Office." [ECF No. 19 at 3].

Defendants argue, and Plaintiff agrees, that YCSO and York County are separate and distinct legal entities. See, e.g., Patel by Patel v. McIntyre, 667 F.Supp. 1131, 1146 (D.S.C. 1987) ("it is well established in South Carolina case law that law enforcement at the county level is the exclusive province of the sheriff") (citation omitted), aff'd sub nom. Patel by Patel v. Dyar, 848 F.2d 185 (4th Cir. 1988). Notwithstanding, Plaintiff argues that he has "sufficiently pled the seizure was conducted at the behest of policies andprocedures of both federal and state agencies including York County," and that YCSO "is essentially an arm of Defendant York County." [ECF No. 22 at 4]. Plaintiff further argues that the taking of his "currency without any nexus to criminal activity" is a policy or custom that violates his constitutional rights, York County has adopted YCSO's policies and procedures, but also that York County is able to change the policies and procedures at issue in this case. See id.

Plaintiff is mistaken. In South Carolina, a sheriff's office is an agency of the state, not a department under the control of a county. Millmine v. Cty. of Lexington (S.C.), C/A No. 3:09-1644-CMC, 2011 WL 182875, at *5 (D.S.C. Jan. 20, 2011) ("In South Carolina, a sheriff's department is an agency of the state, not a department under the control of the county."); Gulledge v. Smart, 691 F. Supp. 947, 954-55 (D.S.C.1988) (discussing sheriff as agent and alter ego of state and that deputy sheriffs act as the sheriff's agents), aff'd, 878 F.2d 379 (4th Cir. 1989). Therefore, York County has no control over the actions or policies implemented by YCSO. See Allen v. Fid. & Deposit Co., 515 F. Supp. 1185, 1191 (D.S.C. 1981) ("by long established custom and practice now firmly established as the policy and law of this State, the County of Aiken is precluded from exercising any supervisory function or control over the sheriff or his deputies, and, accordingly, it has been relievedof responsibilities for him or his deputies in the performance of their official duties"), aff'd, 694 F.2d 716 (4th Cir. 1982).²

Accordingly, the undersigned recommends granting Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's federal claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against both YCSO and York County for monetary damages.

2. South Carolina Constitutional Claims

Defendants argue that South Carolina has not adopted an equivalent to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and therefore there is no private right of action for money damages for alleged violations of the South Carolina Constitution. [ECF No. 19 at 4]. In response, Plaintiff points to no constitutional provision or enabling statue allowing for civil damages for the...