Case: Kenny v. Wilson

2:16-cv-02794 | U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina

Filed Date: Aug. 11, 2016

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On August 11, 2016, the non-profit, Girls Rock, and four students of South Carolina public schools, filed this lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. The plaintiffs sued the Attorney General of South Carolina and the heads of twelve South Carolina Police Departments under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, asked the court for a declaratory judgment that two South Carolina codes, commonly referred to as the "Disturbing Schools" statute and the “Disorderly Conduct” statute violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They further asked for injunctive relief enjoining the defendants from enforcing the statutes. The plaintiffs claimed that the statutes set an impossible standard for students to follow and made it next to impossible for students to speak out against mistreatment or unfair punishment. The plaintiffs also claimed that the statutes violated due process because they were unjustifiably vague. Further, the plaintiffs pointed to evidence that the statutes disproportionately affected Black students.

One named plaintiff, a nineteen-year-old Black girl, was a former student of a South Carolina public school. While in math class one day, she and other students watched as a School Resource Officer flipped a classmate onto the floor in her desk, yanked her from the overturned desk, dragged her across the floor, and handcuffed her. (She had been caught texting in class and refused to leave her seat.) The plaintiff called out for someone to stop the violence and began documenting the event; she was then herself arrested under the Disturbing Schools statute and held in an adult detention center for several hours.

With the complaint, the plaintiffs also filed a motion to certify class and a motion for a preliminary injunction.

On December 8, 2016, U.S. District Judge C. Weston Houck held a hearing on the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, the defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim and lack of jurisdiction, and on the defendants’ motion to strike class action certification. On March 3, 2017, the court granted the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On March 20, 2017, the defendants moved for attorneys’ fees.

The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Fourth Circuit on this order to dismiss on March 22, 2017. Shortly after, the district court granted a motion to stay proceedings on the defendants’ fees and expenses motion pending resolution of the appeal.

On April 6, 2018, the Fourth Circuit overturned the dismissal, finding the plaintiffs’ allegations sufficient to allege injury in fact. 885 F.3d 280. The court held that students faced a credible threat of future arrest or prosecution under the challenged laws, and so the Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded the decision of the district court. The case was reassigned to Judge Margaret B. Seymour. The defendants again moved to dismiss the complaints.

The plaintiffs and the police department defendants entered into a consent agreement to stay proceedings on May 15, 2018, recognizing that a bill in the South Carolina Legislature, if passed, would make changes to the current Disturbing Schools law. The police department defendants withdrew all pending renewed motions to dismiss and objections to the plaintiffs’ class certification, and the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss all claims against the police department defendants with prejudice upon a final judgment on claims against the remaining defendants. The plaintiffs further agreed to seek attorneys’ fees and costs from the other defendants should the plaintiffs prevail in the litigation, and the police department defendants agreed to not seek fees from the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs continued to pursue claims against the Attorney General of South Carolina. They filed an amended complaint on May 16, 2019, adding another individual plaintiff. In addition, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction as well as a motion to dismiss or strike class action allegations on June 6, 2019. The court denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss on March 30, 2020. The court reasoned, among other things, that although one of the plaintiffs was no longer in school, her claims, being of a transitory nature, were not moot. In addition, the court found that as no pleadings had made clear that the class in this matter cannot be certified, it would be premature to rule on the validity of the class allegations at this time.

On May 11, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class. Following a telephone conference on October 29, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a supplemental memo to redefine the proposed class to reference the Disorderly Conduct Law only. The proposed class definition applied to “[a]ll elementary and secondary school students in South Carolina, each of whom faces a risk of risk of [sic] arrest or juvenile referral under the broad and overly vague terms of S.C. Code § 16-17-530 while attending school.” The plaintiffs also proposed two subclasses, which applied to “[a]ll elementary and secondary school students in South Carolina for whom a record exists relating to being taken into custody, charges filed, adjudication, or disposition under S.C. Code § 16-17-530 (‘Disorderly Conduct Law Sub-Class’)” and “[a]ll elementary and secondary school students in South Carolina for whom a record exists relating to being taken into custody, charges filed, adjudication, or disposition under S.C. Code § 16-17-420 prior to May 17, 2018 (‘Former Disturbing Schools Law Sub-Class’).”

Judge Seymour issued an order certifying the class and subclasses on February 24, 2021. The court first found the numerosity requirement satisfied. Turning to the commonality requirement, the court agreed with the plaintiffs. Specifically, the court reasoned that the details of specific incidents does not defeat commonality because they were not necessary for adjudicating the vagueness claim. Finally, the court also found that the typicality and adequate representation requirements were met. The court further found that the action could be maintained under Rule 23(b)(2) because the entire class of public elementary and secondary students were subject and at risk of enforcement under the Disorderly Conduct Law. 2021 WL 720449.

On July 23, 2021, both parties moved for summary judgment. The court first reaffirmed its prior rulings that the named plaintiffs’ claims were not moot due to the inherently transitory nature of the claims. 566 F. Supp. 3d 447.

Beginning with the Disorderly Conduct Law, the court specifically held the terms “disorderly,” “boisterous manner,” and “obscene and profane language” to be unconstitutionally vague on their face as applied to students. The statute did not provide definitions for these terms and testimony demonstrated there was no objective standard. Turning next to the former Disturbing Schools Law, the court similarly found it unconstitutionally vague on its face as applied to school students. Accordingly, Judge Seymour granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs on October 8, 2021. Judge Seymour also issued an order permanently enjoining enforcement of the Disorderly Conduct Law and retention of records related to the former Disturbing Schools Law. 566 F. Supp. 3d 447.

The defendant appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on October 12, 2021. Pending the appeal, the defendant moved to stay the court’s summary judgment order. Judge Seymour granted the defendant’s motion in part on December 1, 2021, specifically staying the permanent injunction prohibiting the state from retaining records related to the Disorderly Conduct Law Sub-Class and the Disturbing Schools Law Sub-Class.

On February 22, 2023, the circuit court affirmed the district court’s October 8, 2021 order. The circuit court first held that the plaintiffs had standing. Specifically, the circuit court found that at least two of the named plaintiffs met the three standing requirements (injury in fact, causation, and redressability). The circuit court also rejected challenges to the district court’s grant of class certification. 60 F.4th 770.

Turning to the legal challenges, the circuit court affirmed the district court’s finding that both the Disorderly Conduct Law and the former Disturbing Schools Law were unconstitutionally vague. Finally, the circuit court rejected the defendant’s challenge to the ordered remedy, finding no precedent to support the argument. 60 F.4th 770.

	Document
2:16-cv-02794	Docket [PACER]	June 5, 2020	June 5, 2020 Docket
1 2:16-cv-02794	Complaint	Aug. 11, 2016	Aug. 11, 2016 Complaint
86 2:16-cv-02794	Statement of Interest of the United States	Nov. 28, 2016	Nov. 28, 2016 Pleading / Motion / Brief
91 2:16-cv-02794	Order Granting Motion to Dismiss	March 3, 2017	March 3, 2017 Order/Opinion
102 2:16-cv-02794	USCA Opinion U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit	March 15, 2018	March 15, 2018 Order/Opinion
131 2:16-cv-02794	Consent Order	May 15, 2018	May 15, 2018 Order/Opinion
157 2:16-cv-02794	First Amended Complaint	May 16, 2019	May 16, 2019 Complaint
185 2:16-cv-02794	Order and Opinion	March 30, 2020	March 30, 2020 Order/Opinion 2020 WL 1515527
201 2:16-cv-02794	Opinion and Order	Feb. 24, 2021	Feb. 24, 2021 Order/Opinion 2021 WL 720449
240 2:16-cv-02794	Opinion and Order	Oct. 8, 2021	Oct. 8, 2021 Order/Opinion 566 F.Supp.3d 447

Title	Description		External URL Date / External URL
Kenny v. Wilson ACLU	The American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit challenging South Carolina’s “disturbing schools” law. The law allows students in school to be criminally charged for normal adolescent beha…	March 8, 2021	March 8, 2021 https://www.aclu.org/...
Kenny v. Wilson American Civil Liberties Union	The American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit challenging South Carolina’s “disturbing schools” law. The law allows students in school to be criminally charged for normal adolescent beha…	March 16, 2017	March 16, 2017 https://www.aclu.org/...

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
1	COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0420-6702430.), filed by DS, Niya Kenny, Taurean Nesmith, SP, Girls Rock Charleston Inc. Service due by 11/14/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 1: 1919 S.c. Acts 239, # 2 Appendix 2: 1968 S.C. Acts 2308, # 3 Appendix 3: 1972 S.C. Acts 1426, # 4 Appendix 4:In re Joelle T., No. 20 1 0-UP-547, 2010 WL 10088227, at *1 (S.C. Ct. App. Dec. 16,2010), # 5 Appendix 5: 1994 S.C. Op. Att'yGen. 25,1994 WL 199757, # 6 Appendix 6:Letter from Robert D. Cook, S.c. Assistant Att'y Gen., to Hon. John W. Holcombe, # 7 Appendix 7: 1990 S.C. Op. Att'y Gen. 61, 1990 WL 482448, # 8 Appendix Index to Appendices)(vdru, ) (Entered: 08/12/2016)	Aug. 11, 2016	Aug. 11, 2016 PACER
2	Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by DS, Girls Rock Charleston Inc, Niya Kenny, Taurean Nesmith, SP.(vdru, ) (Main Document 2 replaced on 8/18/2016) (vdru, ). Modified to replace with corrected document provided by filer on 8/18/2016 (vdru, ). (Entered: 08/12/2016)	Aug. 11, 2016	Aug. 11, 2016 PACER
3	Summons Issued as to All Defendants. (vdru, ) (Entered: 08/12/2016)	Aug. 11, 2016	Aug. 11, 2016 PACER
5	MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Niya Kenny. Response to Motion due by 9/2/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Decl of Plaintiff Kenny, # 2 Affidavit Decl. of Plaintiff Nesmith, # 3 Affidavit Decl. of Carpenter on behalf of Plaintiff Girls Rock, # 4 Affidavit Decl. of Plaintiff D.S., # 5 Affidavit Decl. of Plaintiff S.P., # 6 Affidavit Decl. of K,B. (minor), # 7 Affidavit Decl. of French Marcelin, # 8 Affidavit Decl. of Ryan (expert), # 9 Addendum Refernces and endnotes to Ryan's decl., # 10 Appendix Part 1 of Appendix to Ryan Decl. Curriculum vitae, # 11 Appendix Part 2 of Appendix to Ryan 's Decl. Curriculum vitae., # 12 Affidavit Decl. of Kayiza, # 13 Exhibit Ex. A DJJ statistics, # 14 Exhibit Ex. B Incident reports, # 15 Exhibit Ex. C.1 Charleston County School District Code of Conduct, # 16 Exhibit Ex. C.2 Richland One Discipline Code of Conduct, # 17 Exhibit Ex C.3 Greenville County School District Student Code, # 18 Exhibit Ex. C.4 Richland School District 2 Back-2-School Handbook, # 19 Exhibit Ex. C-5 Spring Valley 2015-2016 Student Handbook, # 20 Exhibit Ex. D Excerpts from DJJ facilities descriptions, # 21 Exhibit Ex. E Publication of 13th Circuit Public Defenders Office, # 22 Exhibit Ex.F Expungement information, # 23 Exhibit Ex. G. Description of Twilight program, # 24 Exhibit Ex. H Letter from Solicitor Donald Myers, # 25 Exhibit Ex. I DOJ COPS Fact Sheet on SROs)No proposed order.(Dunn, Susan) (Entered: 08/16/2016)	Aug. 16, 2016	Aug. 16, 2016 PACER
6	MOTION to Certify Class by Niya Kenny. Response to Motion due by 9/6/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Henry v. Jefferson Cty. Planning Commn, No. 99-2122, 215 F.3d 1318, 2000 WL 742188 (4th Cir. 2000), # 2 Appendix R.A.G. ex rel. R.B. v. Buffalo City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 569 F. Appx 41 (2d Cir. 2014), # 3 Appendix R.A-G ex rel. R.B. v. Buffalo City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., No. 12-CV-960S, 2013 WL 3354424 (W.D.N.Y. July 3, 2013), # 4 Affidavit Decl. of Plaintiff Kenny, # 5 Affidavit Decl. of Plaintiff Nesmith, # 6 Affidavit Decl. of Carpenter on behalf of Plaintiff Girls Rock, # 7 Affidavit Decl. of Plaintiff D.S., # 8 Affidavit Decl. of Plaintiff S.P., # 9 Affidavit Decl. of Plaintiff K.B.)No proposed order.(Dunn, Susan) (Entered: 08/17/2016)	Aug. 17, 2016	Aug. 17, 2016 PACER
7	MOTION for Extension of Time by Lance Crowe, Ken Miller, Steve Moore, A Keith Morton, Alan Wilson. Response to Motion due by 9/12/2016. Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to opposing counsel.(Smith, James) (Entered: 08/25/2016)	Aug. 25, 2016	Aug. 25, 2016 PACER
8	ORDER granting 7 Motion for Extension of Time. It is ordered that the Defendants are granted a 21 day extension in addition to the 21 days allowed by Rule 12, FRCP, after service, for a total of 42 days to respond to the Complaint following service. They are also granted a 28 day extension to respond to Plaintiffs' Motions for Preliminary Injunction and Class Certification in addition to the 14 allowed by Local Rule 7.06 after service, for a total of 42 days to respond to the Motions following service. Signed by Honorable C Weston Houck on 8/26/2016.(vdru, ) (Entered: 08/26/2016)	Aug. 26, 2016	Aug. 26, 2016 PACER
9	MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Sarah Ann Hinger ( Filing fee $ 250 receipt number 0420-6734015) by Niya Kenny. Response to Motion due by 9/15/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Application of Sarah Hinger, # 2 Supporting Documents Certificate of Good Standing)Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to opposing counsel.(Dunn, Susan) (Entered: 08/29/2016)	Aug. 29, 2016	Aug. 29, 2016 PACER
10	MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Dennis David Parker ( Filing fee $ 250 receipt number 0420-6734036) by Niya Kenny. Response to Motion due by 9/15/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Application of Dennis Parker, # 2 Supporting Documents Certificate of Good Standing)Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to opposing counsel.(Dunn, Susan) (Attachment 1 replaced on 8/31/2016) (vdru, ). Modified to replace attachment #1 with corrected document provided by the filer on 8/31/2016 (vdru,). (Entered: 08/29/2016)	Aug. 29, 2016	Aug. 29, 2016 PACER
11	MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Galen Leigh Sherwin ( Filing fee $ 250 receipt number 0420-6734045) by Niya Kenny. Response to Motion due by 9/15/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Application of Galen Sherwin, # 2 Supporting Documents Certificate of Good Standing)Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to opposing counsel.(Dunn, Susan) (Entered: 08/29/2016)	Aug. 29, 2016	Aug. 29, 2016 PACER
12	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by W H Holbrook. Response to Motion due by 9/16/2016. No proposed order.(Hemlepp, William) (Entered: 08/30/2016)	Aug. 30, 2016	Aug. 30, 2016 PACER
13	ORDER granting 11 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. It is ordered that Galen Leigh Sherwin who represents the Plaintiffs is granted admission pro hac vice in this case. Signed by Honorable C Weston Houck on 8/30/2016.(vdru, ) (Entered: 08/31/2016)	Aug. 31, 2016	Aug. 31, 2016 PACER
14	ORDER granting 9 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. It is ordered that Sarah Ann Hinger who represents the Plaintiffs is granted admission pro hac vice in this case. Signed by Honorable C Weston Houck on 8/30/2016.(vdru, ) (Entered: 08/31/2016)	Aug. 31, 2016	Aug. 31, 2016 PACER
15	ORDER granting 10 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. It is ordered that Dennis David Parker who represents the Plaintiffs is granted admission pro hac vice in this case. Signed by Honorable C Weston Houck on 8/31/2016.(vdru, ) (Entered: 08/31/2016)	Aug. 31, 2016	Aug. 31, 2016 PACER
16	TEXT ORDER granting 12 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re 1 Complaint, W H Holbrook answer due 9/30/2016. Defendant W.H. Holbrook is granted an extension of time of 21 days to respond by answer or motion to the Complaint. Defendant W.H. Holbrook is also granted an extension of time of 28 days to respond to Plaintiffs Motions for Preliminary Injunction and Class Certification. Entered at the Direction of The Honorable C Weston Houck on 8/31/2016. (vdru, ) (Entered: 09/01/2016)	Sept. 1, 2016	Sept. 1, 2016 PACER
17	MOTION for Extension of Time by Steve Loftis. Response to Motion due by 9/26/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)No proposed order.(Culbreath, Anne) (Entered: 09/07/2016)	Sept. 7, 2016	Sept. 7, 2016 PACER
18	MOTION for Extension of Time by Leon Lott. Response to Motion due by 9/26/2016. No proposed order.(Garfield, Robert) (Entered: 09/07/2016)	Sept. 7, 2016	Sept. 7, 2016 PACER
19	MOTION for Extension of Time by Carl Ritchie. Response to Motion due by 9/26/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Email from Susan Dunn re: consent to requested extensions)No proposed order.(Lindemann, Andrew) (Entered: 09/08/2016)	Sept. 8, 2016	Sept. 8, 2016 PACER
20	Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by Lance Crowe, Ken Miller, Steve Moore, A Keith Morton, Alan Wilson.(Smith, James) (Entered: 09/08/2016)	Sept. 8, 2016	Sept. 8, 2016 PACER
21	TEXT ORDER granting 18 Motion for Extension of Time and 19 Motion for Extension of Time. The deadline for Defendants Carl Ritchie and Leon Lott to respond to the Complaint and motions is extended until Sept. 30. Entered at the Direction of The Honorable C Weston Houck on 9/8/2016.(vdru, ) (Entered: 09/08/2016)	Sept. 8, 2016	Sept. 8, 2016 PACER
23	MOTION for Extension of Time by M Bryan Turner. Response to Motion due by 9/30/2016. No proposed order.(Smith, James) (Entered: 09/13/2016)	Sept. 13, 2016	Sept. 13, 2016 PACER
24	TEXT ORDER granting 23 Motion for Extension of Time and 17 Motion for Extension of Time. It is ordered that the deadline for Defendants Loftis and Turner's responses to the Complaint and to the Motions for Preliminary Injunction and Class Certification is extended to September 30. Entered at the Direction of The Honorable C Weston Houck on 9/14/2016.(vdru, ) (Entered: 09/14/2016)	Sept. 14, 2016	Sept. 14, 2016 PACER
25	MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Lance Crowe, Steve Moore, A Keith Morton, M Bryan Turner, Alan Wilson. Response to Motion due by 10/14/2016. No proposed order.(Smith, James) (Entered: 09/26/2016)	Sept. 26, 2016	Sept. 26, 2016 PACER
26	TEXT ORDER granting 25 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. It is ordered that the Defendants may include up to 15 additional pages in their Memo in Support of their Motion to Dismiss and in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Entered at the Direction of The Honorable C Weston Houck on 9/27/2016.(vdru, ) (Entered: 09/28/2016)	Sept. 28, 2016	Sept. 28, 2016 PACER
27	MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by W H Holbrook. Response to Motion due by 10/17/2016. No proposed order.(Hemlepp, William) (Entered: 09/28/2016)	Sept. 28, 2016	Sept. 28, 2016 PACER
28	MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM AND MOTION TO STRIKE CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS by Lance Crowe, Steve Moore, A Keith Morton, M Bryan Turner, Alan Wilson. Response to Motion due by 10/17/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Memo in Support)No proposed order.(Smith, James) (Entered: 09/30/2016)	Sept. 30, 2016	Sept. 30, 2016 PACER
29	RESPONSE in Opposition re 6 MOTION to Certify Class Response filed by Lance Crowe, Steve Moore, A Keith Morton, M Bryan Turner, Alan Wilson.Reply to Response to Motion due by 10/11/2016 (Smith, James) (Entered: 09/30/2016)	Sept. 30, 2016	Sept. 30, 2016 PACER
30	RESPONSE in Opposition re 5 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Response filed by Lance Crowe, Steve Moore, A Keith Morton, M Bryan Turner, Alan Wilson.Reply to Response to Motion due by 10/11/2016 (Smith, James) (Entered: 09/30/2016)	Sept. 30, 2016	Sept. 30, 2016 PACER
31	Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by M Bryan Turner.(Smith, James) (Entered: 09/30/2016)	Sept. 30, 2016	Sept. 30, 2016 PACER
32	NOTICE of Appearance by Robert P Coler on behalf of Ken Miller (Coler, Robert) (Entered: 09/30/2016)	Sept. 30, 2016	Sept. 30, 2016 PACER
33	MOTION to Stay re 6 MOTION to Certify Class by J Alton Cannon, Jr, Eddie Driggers, Jr, Gregory G Mullen. Response to Motion due by 10/17/2016. No proposed order.(Senn, Sandra) (Entered: 09/30/2016)	Sept. 30, 2016	Sept. 30, 2016 PACER
34	First MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction 12(b)(1) Subject Matter Jurisdiction by Ken Miller. Response to Motion due by 10/17/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Memo in Support)No proposed order.(Coler, Robert) (Entered: 09/30/2016)	Sept. 30, 2016	Sept. 30, 2016 PACER
35	RESPONSE in Opposition re 5 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Response filed by J Alton Cannon, Jr, Eddie Driggers, Jr, Gregory G Mullen.Reply to Response to Motion due by 10/11/2016 (Senn, Sandra) (Entered: 09/30/2016)	Sept. 30, 2016	Sept. 30, 2016 PACER
36	MOTION to Dismiss, MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM ( Response to Motion due by 10/17/2016.) by Steve Loftis. (Attachments: # 1 Memo in Support Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss)No proposed order.(Culbreath, Anne) (Entered: 09/30/2016)	Sept. 30, 2016	Sept. 30, 2016 PACER
37	RESPONSE in Opposition re 5 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Response filed by Steve Loftis.Reply to Response to Motion due by 10/11/2016 (Culbreath, Anne) (Entered: 09/30/2016)	Sept. 30, 2016	Sept. 30, 2016 PACER
38	RESPONSE in Opposition re 6 MOTION to Certify Class Response filed by Steve Loftis.Reply to Response to Motion due by 10/11/2016 (Culbreath, Anne) (Entered: 09/30/2016)	Sept. 30, 2016	Sept. 30, 2016 PACER
39	Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by Steve Loftis.(Culbreath, Anne) (Entered: 09/30/2016)	Sept. 30, 2016	Sept. 30, 2016 PACER
40	Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by J Alton Cannon, Jr, Eddie Driggers, Jr, Gregory G Mullen.(Senn, Sandra) (Entered: 09/30/2016)	Sept. 30, 2016	Sept. 30, 2016 PACER
41	MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by J Alton Cannon, Jr, Eddie Driggers, Jr, Gregory G Mullen. Response to Motion due by 10/17/2016. No proposed order.(Senn, Sandra) (Entered: 09/30/2016)	Sept. 30, 2016	Sept. 30, 2016 PACER
42	MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM /Lack of Jurisdiction by Carl Ritchie. Response to Motion due by 10/17/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Memo in Support)No proposed order.(Lindemann, Andrew) (Entered: 09/30/2016)	Sept. 30, 2016	Sept. 30, 2016 PACER

Case: Kenny v. Wilson

2:16-cv-02794 | U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina

Case Summary

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Resources

Docket

Case Details