Gary Lamont Petty v. Amy W. Cox, Megan Shropshire, A. Freeman, Barry Barnette

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissed Gary Lamont Petty’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action without prejudice and without issuance or service of process. The court held that the defendant court clerks were entitled to quasi-judicial immunity, the solicitor was entitled to prosecutorial immunity, and Petty failed to plausibly allege actual injury or denial of access to the courts. The court also concluded that it lacked authority to direct state officials or courts to adjudicate Petty’s state post-conviction and related motions, and denied his request for appointed counsel.

Holdings

1. Court clerks and their deputies are entitled to quasi-judicial immunity from civil liability for acts integral to or intertwined with the judicial process, including filing documents, providing notice, and scheduling hearings.
2. A prosecutor is absolutely immune from a civil damages action under § 1983 for presenting the State's case and responding to motions as part of the prosecution.
3. A prisoner asserting denial of access to the courts must plead nonconclusory facts showing actual injury or prejudice, specifically that official conduct hindered efforts to pursue a legal claim.
4. A federal district court lacks jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials or to direct state courts to adjudicate state proceedings and schedule hearings.
5. Appointment of counsel was unwarranted because Petty did not show exceptional or unusual circumstances or that denial of counsel would result in a denial of due process.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the claims for damages against the court clerks and deputy clerks were barred by quasi-judicial immunity.
2. Whether the claims for damages against the solicitor were barred by prosecutorial immunity.
3. Whether Petty plausibly alleged an actionable denial of access to the courts under the Fourteenth Amendment.
4. Whether the federal district court had authority to direct state officials or state courts to adjudicate state post-conviction proceedings and schedule hearings.
5. Whether appointment of counsel was warranted.

Disposition

dismissed