Phillip Maurice Hicks v. Berkeley County, City of Charleston, Rita Hammond, Kelsey Gaston, Boulevard Company, JKG Real Estate LLC, Kayla Owens, Schwartz Law, Heather Gilbert, Gilbert & Barnhill, PA, Adam Schaaf, Low Country Orthopedics & Sports Medicine LLC, Kyra McMillan, Corvey Law Firm, Ernest Jarrett, Jack Landis

Summary

A United States magistrate judge recommends summary dismissal of pro se plaintiff Phillip Maurice Hicks’s in forma pauperis civil action. The recommendation concludes that the complaint fails to state a plausible federal claim, seeks relief from immune or non-state-actor defendants, cannot be asserted on behalf of a limited liability company without counsel, and does not establish a basis for federal jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

Holdings

1. A pro se litigant may not represent an LLC or assert claims on the LLC's behalf in federal court; an LLC must appear through licensed counsel.
2. The complaint failed to state a plausible § 1983 claim because it did not adequately identify a nonimmune person acting under color of state law who violated a federal right.
3. The claims for damages against Judges Jarrett and Landis were barred by absolute judicial immunity because the allegations concerned judicial acts and did not plausibly show action in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.
4. The claims against Berkeley County and the City of Charleston failed because the complaint did not identify a municipal policy or custom that caused a constitutional injury.
5. The complaint did not state a § 1983 claim against the private individuals, attorneys, law firms, businesses, or guardian ad litem because it did not plausibly allege state action.
6. The court should abstain under Younger to the extent Hicks sought federal intervention in ongoing state criminal or family-court proceedings.
7. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprived the federal district court of jurisdiction over claims seeking review or rejection of state family-court decisions concerning custody, property, or related matters.
8. The court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims after recommending dismissal of all federal claims, and the state-law claims were also subject to dismissal because diversity jurisdiction was absent.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Hicks could represent or assert claims belonging to All Our Girls, LLC while proceeding pro se.
2. Whether the complaint stated a plausible claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the county, city, judges, attorneys, law firms, guardian ad litem, businesses, and private individuals.
3. Whether judicial immunity barred the claims against the state-court judges.
4. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged a constitutional violation and action under color of state law.
5. Whether Younger abstention and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine prevented federal review of ongoing or completed state criminal and family-court proceedings.
6. Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

Disposition

other