ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2020 Aug 04 12:05 PM - ORANGEBURG - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2020CP3800774

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA )

) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF ORANGEBURG )
)
Dr. Thomasena Adams, ) Case No. 2020CP3800774
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF STATE
)
State of South Carolina, Governor )
Henry McMaster, and Palmetto Promise )
Institute, )
)
Defendants. )
____________________________________)

This matter has come before the Court pursuant to the State of South Carolina’s Motion to

Dismiss it as a party to this case. The Plaintiff and the State filed memoranda regarding the

Motion and appeared for argument of the Motion on July 29, 2020, in Orangeburg. After carefully

considering the memoranda and the arguments at the hearing, this Court has decided to grant this

Motion.

This case seeks an injunction to prevent the Defendants from the distribution of any Safe

Access to Public Education (SAFE) Grant which Plaintiff contends violates S.C. Const. art. XI

§§3 and 4. Previously this Court issued a temporary restraining order to last until the hearing on

July 29. The State contends that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to grant injunctive or

declaratory relief as to the State as an entity in this case. This Court agrees.

The Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction to Award Relief as to the State

As stated this Court has previously stated in a prior Order in Harbor Island Owner’s

Association, v. State of South Carolina, et al, April 18, 2019, C/A No. 2018CP702331, p. 2 (copy

attached to State’s Memorandum):

This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction as to the State for the claims for
injunctive relief. A justiciable controversy is a real and substantial controversy
appropriate for judicial determination, as opposed to a dispute or difference of a contingent,
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2020 Aug 04 12:05 PM - ORANGEBURG - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2020CP3800774
hypothetical or abstract character.” Sloan v. Greenville Cty., 356 S.C. 531, 546, 590
S.E.2d 338, 346 (Ct. App. 2003). No such case or controversy exists here because no
remedy is available. The Supreme Court has referred to “redressable injury sufficient to
meet the requirements of Art. III” and “the Art. III requirement of actual or threatened
injury amenable to judicial remedy.” Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Americans United
for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 475 (1982). . . . To require an action
such as removal or a directive requiring others to act necessitates an official with such
duties and authority or at least an agency with such responsibilities. Plaintiff has named
none. Therefore, the State is not a proper defendant to this action and is dismissed.

In this case, the State, as a corporate entity encompassing the entire State of South Carolina, has

no collective responsibilities regarding the SAFE grant program. To enjoin the award of the

grants requires that a person be named who has authority over those awards who can be directed

to do or not do something. The State, as an entity, is not such a person. Accordingly, it must be

dismissed as a party to this case.

The Complaint fares no better as to its claim for declaratory relief. As stated in Tourism

Expenditure Review Comm. v. City of Myrtle Beach, 403 S.C. 76, 81–82, 742 S.E.2d 371, 374

(2013):

“The Uniform Declaratory Judgment[s] Act is not an independent grant of jurisdiction.”

Brown v. Oregon State Bar, 293 Or. 446, 648 P.2d 1289, 1292 (1982). Further, it is
fundamental that the Declaratory Judgments Act does not eliminate the case-or-
controversy requirement. See Power, 255 S.C. at 153–54, 177 S.E.2d at 552 (“ ‘The
existence of an actual controversy is essential to jurisdiction to render a declaratory
judgment.’ ” (quoting S.C. Elec. & Gas Co. v. S.C. Pub. Serv. Auth., 215 S.C. 193, 215,
54 S.E.2d 777, 787 (1949))); City of Columbia v. Sanders, 231 S.C. 61, 68, 97 S.E.2d
210, 213 (“The Uniform Declaratory Judgment[s] Act ... ‘does not require the Court to
give a purely advisory opinion which the parties might, so to speak, put on ice to be used
if and when the occasion might arise,’ or ‘license litigants to fish in judicial ponds for
legal advice.’ ” (citations omitted)).

When this Court lacks subject matter to award injunctive relief against the State as an entity and

when the State, as an entity encompassing the entire State, is not responsible for the award of

SAFE grants, a declaratory ruling regarding the State would be “purely advisory.” Accordingly,

the State is dismissed as a party.

2
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2020 Aug 04 12:05 PM - ORANGEBURG - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2020CP3800774
CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the State’s Motion to Dismiss it as a party to

this case on the above grounds. The Plaintiff is granted leave to amend the Complaint.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

[Electronic signature of Edgar W. Dickson, Circuit

Court Judge, follows]

3
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2020 Aug 04 12:05 PM - ORANGEBURG - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2020CP3800774
Orangeburg Common Pleas

Case Caption: Thomasena Adams VS State Of South Carolina , defendant, et al

Case Number: 2020CP3800774

Type: Order/Dismissal

So Ordered

s/ Edgar W. Dickson #2153

Electronically signed on 2020-08-04 10:07:13 page 4 of 4