Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
• Medical (620)
• Out-of State Depositions (650) 0 Incapacitated Adult Settlement
(790)
• Other(699) • Motion to Quash Subpoena in
an Out-of-County Action (660)
• Sexual Predator (5 I 0)
• Pre-Suit Discovery (670)
0 Other(799)
0 Permanent Restraining Order (680)
0 lnterpleader (690)
Effective January 1, 2016, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is mandatory in all counties, pursuant
to Supreme Court Order dated November 12, 2015.
SUPREME COURT RULES REQUIRE THE SUBMISSION OF ALL CIVIL CASES TO AN ALTERNATIVE
DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS, UNLESS OTHERWISE EXEMPT.
Pursuant to the ADR Rules, you are required to take the following action(s):
1. The parties shall select a neutral and file a "Proof of ADR" form on or by the 210th day of the filing of this
action. If the parties have not selected a neutral within 210 days, the Clerk of Court shall then appoint a
primary and secondary mediator from the current roster on a rotating basis from among those mediators
agreeing to accept cases in the county in which the action has been filed.
2. The initial ADR conference must be held within 300 days after the filing of the action.
3. Pre-suit medical malpractice mediations required by S.C. Code §15-79-125 shall be held not later than 120
days after all defendants are served with the ''Notice of Intent to File Suit" or as the court directs.
4. Cases are exempt from ADR only upon the following grounds:
a. Special proceeding, or actions seeking extraordinary relief such as mandamus, habeas corpus, or
prohibition;
c. Appeals
h. Cases that have been previously subjected to an ADR conference, unless otherwise required by
Rule 3 or by statute.
5. In cases not subject to ADR, the Chief Judge for Administrative Purposes, upon the motion of the court or
of any party, may order a case to mediation.
6. Motion of a party to be exempt from payment of neutral fees due to indigency should be filed with the
Court within ten (10) days after the ADR conference has been concluded.
Please Note: You must comply with the Supreme Court Rules regarding ADR.
Failure to do so may affect your case or may result in sanctions.
Plaintiff,
SUMMONS
v.
. '\
Defendants.
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to answer the Complaint herein, a copy
of which is served upon you, and to serve a copy of your answer to this Complaint upon the
subscriber at the address shown below within thirty (30) days (thirty-five (35) days if served by
United States Mail) after service hereof, exclusive of the date of such service, and if you fail to
answer the Complaint, judgment by default will be rendered against you for the relief demanded
in the Complaint.
BY: ~ = = - -
~ mer(#l470)
Ryan K. Hicks (#100941)
Samantha E. Albrecht (#102642)
1418 Laurel Street, Suite A
Post Office Box 11675 (29211 )
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Phone 803-799-9530
Fax 803-799-9533
Attorney for Plaintiff
April 5, 2018
Columbia, South Carolina
STA1E OF SOUIH CAROUNA IN 11-IE COURT OF CO:MMON PLEAS
FOR 11-IE FIRST JUDIOAL ORCUIT
COUNTY OF DORCHES1ER CASE NO. 201s-a>-1s- lo4 o
Plaintiff, COMPLAINT
Oury Trial Demanded)
v.
Defendants.
EMPLOYMENT CASE
as follows:
Oar-endon C.Ounty, South Carolina, and was formerly employed by the Defendant, South Carolina
Deparunent of C.Orrections.
state agency, headquartered in Richland C.Ounty, South Carolina, tasked with confining and
3. Defendant, :Michael McCall (hereinafter "Defendant McCall"), upon information and belief,
is a citizen and resident of Richland C.Ounty, South C.arolina and worked for Defendant SCDC as a
4. Defendant, Bryan Stirling (hereinafter "Defendant Stirling"), upon information and belief, is
1
a citizen and resident of Richland County, South Gu-olina and worked for Defendant SCDC as its
5. This action arises under the statutory and common law of South Gu-olina.
6. The events giving rise to this action occurred in Clarendon County, the panies have sufficient
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
8. Plaintiff began working for Defendant SCDC in 1994; most recently Plaintiff has served as
9. Outside of the events discussed herein, Plaintiff maintained an exemplary work record with
Defendant SCDC and was subjected to minimal disciplinary action during his employment, if any.
10. In 2011, Plaintiff was transferred from Palmer Pre-Release C.enter to Lieber Correctional
Institute (hereinafter "Lieber"). Lieber his classified as a Level III correctional facility.
11. In 2012, Plaintiff was promoted to Warden of Lieber Correctional Institute, and was named
12. Although Plaintiff was supposed to receive an initial staning salary of $86,000 as Warden,
Plaintiff only received $77,000 - a substantially lower wage than any new warden.
13. Upon taking over as Warden, Plaintiff was tasked with improving the conditions at Lieber,
including, but not limited to, staff shortages, staff training, building condition of the institution, and
more, which he accomplished over the years of his command. Plaintiff was fwther appointed by
Defendant McCall to serve as the team leader over all Level III wardens.
14. On or about July 4, 2017, for the first time under his command, an inmate, Jimmy Causey
2
15. In peninent part, the shift supervisor, Lieutenant Barbara Wright, did not conduct an
16. Because the count was not handled pursuant to policy and training, Causey, a prior escapee of
Broad River C.Orrectional Institute, escaped through the recreation field and left a dummy in bed to
17. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and his staff, Defendant smc had classified Causey, despite his
criminal record, including his prior escape, in such a way that placed him into the general population.
18. Notwithstanding, at the time of the erroneous count, Lieber was operating with approximately
fifteen (15) officers. The minimum number of officers deemed necessary to run the institution was
19. This shortage of officers is/was agencywide and was not limited to Lieber.
20. Plaintiff was not working at the time of the escape, nor did he have any involvement in the
21. On July 5, 2017, Defendant McCall telephoned Plaintiff to advise that that Causey had escaped
and advised Plaintiff that a fence in the facility was cut during the escape.
22. Plaintiff subsequently closed the yard, checked the inmate's cell, made the report of a missing
24. Initially, Defendant McCall instructed Plaintiff to fire every employee of Lieber that was
working at the time of the escape. Plaintiff advised Defendant McCall that doing so would result in
terminating approximately 11-14 employees - some of whom had indirect involvement in the escape
whatsoever.
3
25. Shonly thereafter, Plaintiff's direct supeIVisor, Bernard McKie (hereinafter "McKie"), notified
Plaintiff that he would like likely receive corrective action as a result of the incident despite not being
on-duty at the time of the escape. McKie's reasoning was that Plaintiff's "name was on the sign."
26. During their conversation, McKie further informed Plaintiff that "these people are trying to
fire you." McKie's comment directly referenced Defendants McCall and Stirling.
27. At or around this same time, Defendant SCDC performed a shakedown at Lieber. This
shakedown revealed no deficiencies or errors on the part of Plaintiff or his supeIVisory staff.
28. Plaintiff then requested a meeting with Defendant McCall to discuss the proposed corrective
29. The meeting was attended by Plaintiff, SCDC Attorney Stephen Lunsford, 3-4 Police Semces
30. Following the meeting, auditors were immediately sent from the Division of Security to assess
the status of Lieber. The auditors reponed trivial findings such as unsigned log books and trash in the
yard.
31. Plaintiff never received a copy of the audit repon so that he could review and/ or respond to
32. In late July 2017, after conclusion of the audit, Defendant McCall called Plaintiff on morning
and advised that he would be contacted by Police Semces. Plaintiff inquired as to if he needed to
33. That same day, while at Lieber, Plaintiff was met by Joel Anderson, a security employee for
Defendant SCDC, who seIVed Plaintiff with correction action citing only the Audit. The corrective
34. Plaintiff was charged with "negligence in the line of duty' and received a write up in his
personnel file.
4
35. On or about August 3, 2017, Plaintiff attended a hearing on his corrective action in which
Defendant NkCall instructed Plaintiff to respond. Plaintiff was questioned about the audit but was
36. Plaintiff was fwther questioned about the escape and wrote a statement outlining his minimal
37. At the conclusion of the corrective action hearing, Plaintiff was given only two options by
Defendant McCall: (1) accept an Associate Warden position at Kershaw C.Orrectional including a
substantial demotion in pay; or (2) accept a Warden position at Palmer Work Release Center, a much
smaller facility.
39. Notably, while Plaintiff was meeting with McCall, Defendants had already placed Joel
40. Defendant SCDC also immediately notified local media outlets that Plaintiff and his Associate
Warden,James Blackwell, who was also not working at the time of the Causey escape, were responsible
41. Plaintiff realleges the paragraphs herein as if verbatim, where not inconsistent herewith.
42. At all times herein, Defendant SCDC knew or should have known the allegations and charges
against Plaintiff that he was responsible or had been the cause of the Causey escape were baseless in
fact, false, and recklessly disregarded the truth in taking personnel action against the Plaintiff.
43. The accusations of Defendant SCDC, including, but not limited to, publicly identifying
Plaintiff and Blackwell as the cause of the Causey escape, and otherwise being incompetent as the
5
Warden of Lieber, as discussed herein, and actions associated herewith have defamed the Plaintiff by
made. Defendant SQ)C was aware that Plaintiff was not present at the time of the Causey escape,
and that Plaintiff had specifically trained his officers on the proper manner to conduct a count as
45. Such statements were rnaliciouslypublished by Defendant SffiCto the Plaintiff's co-workers,
colleagues, subordinates, and the public at-large. Such publication was made with malice, mean-spirit,
46. Further, such statements and acts are defamatory per se as they accuse the Plaintiff of
47. Plaintiff has suffered severe reputational loss both professionally and personally; Defendant
reputational loss, been embarrassed, humiliated, and has sustained mental anguish. The Plaintiff is
entitled to an award of actual damages against Defendant SffiC including damages for emotional
pain and suffering, in amounts to be determined by a jury. Plaintiff is further entitled to an award of
49. Plaintiff realleges the paragraphs above as if set forth herein verbatim, where not inconsistent
herewith.
6
50. At various times and places, the individual Defendants have met, schemed, planned, and
conspired with one another to harass, demean, threaten, cUtd o_!:herwi$e harm Plaintiff in his career and
51. The individual Defendants acted upon their own personal agendas and for their own personal
a. Defendants McCall and Stirling were fully aware that Plaintiff had no involvement and
b. Defendants McCall and Stirling knew that in their capacities they could not issue Plaintiff
c. Defendants McCall and Stirling knew it was enor on their part to have Causey placed into
general population, further contributing to his ability to escape from a correctional facility
agam;
d Defendants McCall and Stirling sought to identify a supervisory level employee to seive
as a scapegoat to the public at-large to be identified as the person responsible for the
Causey escape;
e. Defendants McCall and Stirling avoided their responsibilities for the Causey escape
52. The individual Defendants prepared a pretextual, manufactured complaint against Plaintiff in
order to take corrective action against him to portray him as the cause of the Causey escape externally
53. Plaintiff was further informed by McKie that Defendants McCall and Stirling "wanted Plaintiff
fired"
7
54. Such actions on the part of the individual Defendants were outside the course and scope of
~mpl9~J!t ;µiq c.µri~d OlJt with me intent tQ hami Plaintiff. Be~au.s~ pf their positions within
55. The individual Defendants, named herein, and possibly others have engaged in an unlawful
conspiracy and combination of persons to cause the Plaintiff special damages which could not
otherwise have been inflicted upon him for which they are liable.
56. That as a direct and proximate result of the wrongful civil conspiracy referred to herein, the
Plaintiff has been ostracized and blacklisted, has sustained a further loss of income as a result of his
involuntary transfer to Palmer, embarrassment, humiliation, and mental suffering and is entitled to an
award of punitive damages from the individual Defendants, in their individual capacities, for their
malicious, mean-spirited, and bad faith actions. The Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Joseph Levern McFadden prays for judgment against Defendants,
jointly and severally, in amounts equal to the sum of his actual damages, including embarrassment and
suffering, as well as punitive damages, in amounts to be determined by a jury, together with an award
of reasonable attorneys fees and costs of this action, and for any such other and further relief as this
8
CROMER BABB PORTER & HICKS, LLC
Attom~sfor Plaintiff
April ~ , 2018
C.Olurnbia, South C.arolina