Ismail O. Dickerson v. 15th Judicial Circuit Solicitor's Office; Jimmy A. Richardson, II; Morgan O'Bryan Martin; Dylan Bagnal; and George Debusk

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina overruled Ismail O. Dickerson’s objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation of dismissal. The court held that the claims concerning alleged withholding of exculpatory evidence were barred by absolute prosecutorial immunity and that the Solicitor’s Office was not subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court dismissed the action at the screening stage, denied appointment of counsel, and notified the parties of their right to appeal.

Holdings

1. Prosecutors are absolutely immune from § 1983 damages claims based on decisions concerning evaluation and disclosure of evidence, including alleged deliberate withholding of Brady material, because those decisions are advocative conduct intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.
2. The investigative exception recognized in Burns v. Reed did not apply because the challenged conduct involved post-prosecution evidence evaluation, Brady compliance, and preparation of the criminal case for trial rather than pre-prosecution legal advice to police.
3. Alleged violations of state professional conduct rules do not strip prosecutors of absolute immunity for advocative conduct and do not independently provide a cause of action under § 1983.
4. The 15th Judicial Circuit Solicitor's Office is an arm of the State rather than a municipal entity subject to suit under § 1983 and is immune under the Eleventh Amendment. In any event, the plaintiff failed to allege a plausible policy, custom, or failure-to-train theory.
5. Appointment of counsel was not warranted because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances; the dispositive issue was a purely legal question and the action was subject to dismissal at screening.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the plaintiff's § 1983 damages claims based on alleged withholding of Brady material were barred by absolute prosecutorial immunity.
2. Whether the 15th Judicial Circuit Solicitor's Office could be held liable under § 1983 or was immune under the Eleventh Amendment.
3. Whether the action was subject to summary dismissal at the initial screening stage under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
4. Whether the plaintiff demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).

Disposition

dismissed