2:23-cv-01519-DCN Date Filed 04/17/23 Entry Number 8 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Casey Pace and Betty Pace, )

) CASE NO.: 2:23-cv-01519-DCN
Plaintiffs, )
)
DEFENDANTS GOOSE CREEK
v. )
) POLICE DEPARTMENT AND
Berkeley County School District, Goose ) CHIEF LJ ROSCOE’S MOTION TO
Creek Police Department, The City of ) DISMISS
Goose Creek, Chief LJ Roscoe, Conrad )
Sands Stayton, Shelly Love Ollic, and John )
Doe. )
)
Defendants. )
)

NOW COMES Defendants Goose Creek Police Department and Chief LJ Roscoe

(“Defendants”), by and through their undersigned counsel, who hereby bring the present Motion

pursuant to 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for an Order dismissing the claims

asserted against them in the Plaintiffs’ Complaint (ECF #1-1) on the grounds stated below.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

According to the Plaintiffs’ Complaint, this case is based on an alleged inappropriate

relationship between a school resource officer and the Plaintiffs’ child during which the child made

false allegations of abuse and neglect against the Plaintiffs on an unspecified date in 2022. (Dkt.

No. 1-1 at 5-6.) These allegations resulted in the Plaintiffs becoming the subjects of investigations

conducted by the Goose Creek Police Department and the South Carolina Department of Social

Services. Id. at 6. The investigations were thereafter closed without any further action. Id.

The Plaintiffs filed this action in the Berkeley County Court of Common Pleas on February

24, 2023, and these Defendants filed a General Denial Answer on March 28, 2023. The case was

subsequently removed to this Court on April 13, 2023. The Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges five

1
 2:23-cv-01519-DCN Date Filed 04/17/23 Entry Number 8 Page 2 of 4

causes of action: (1) a negligence, gross negligence, and reckless claim against Defendants GCPD,

Goose Creek, and Chief Roscoe; (2) a negligence, gross negligence, and reckless claim against

Defendant Berkeley County School District; (3) a negligence, gross negligence, and recklessness

claim against Defendant Ollic; (4) an intentional infliction of emotional distress/outrage claim

against Defendant Stayton; and (5) a 42 U.SC. § 1983 claim against Defendants Stayton and Ollic.

Id. at 7-13. For the reasons stated below, Defendants Goose Creek Police Department and Chief

LJ Roscoe respectfully request that the Court dismiss the claims against them.

ARGUMENT

I. The Plaintiffs’ state law claims are controlled by the South Carolina Tort Claims Act,
and the Goose Creek Police Department is an improperly named Defendant.

In their first cause of action, the Plaintiffs assert a negligence, gross negligence, and

reckless claim against Goose Creek Police Department, the City of Goose Creek, and Chief

Roscoe. (Dkt. No. 1-1 at 7.) The South Carolina Tort Claims Act (“SCTCA”) governs all tort

claims in South Carolina against governmental entities and is the exclusive civil remedy available

in an action against a governmental entity or its employees. See Murphy v. Richland Mem'l Hosp.,

317 S.C. 560, 455 S.E. 2d 688 (1995). The Goose Creek Police Department is not a proper

defendant under the SCTCA. Rather, “[t]he proper party under section 15-75-70(c) [of the Act] is

the City.” Wilson v. Slager, No. 2:15-CV-2170-DCN-MGB, 2016 WL 11407785, at *6 (D.S.C.

Jan. 25, 2016), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Wilson v. First Class Patrol Officers

Michael Slager, No. 2:15-CV-02170-DCN, 2016 WL 1253179 (D.S.C. Mar. 31, 2016). It is well

established that “[f]ederal courts in this district have determined that the [town] is the proper

defendant under the SCTCA and have dismissed police departments based on that finding.”

McCree v. Chester Police Dep't, No. 0:20-CV-00867-JMC, 2021 WL 3711098, at *3 (D.S.C. Aug.

20, 2021) citing Heath v. Town of Isle of Palms, C/A No. 2:18-3190-RMG-BM, 2019 WL

2
 2:23-cv-01519-DCN Date Filed 04/17/23 Entry Number 8 Page 3 of 4

1339201, at *1, (D.S.C. January 15, 2019) (town was the proper defendant under the SCTCA and

police department should be dismissed as a defendant), report and recommendation adopted, C/A

No. 2:18-3190-RMG, 2019 WL 447317 (D.S.C. February 5, 2019) and Slager, C/A No. 2:15-

2170-DCN-MGB, 2016 WL 11407785, at *6 (city, not the police department, was proper party

under the SCTCA).

In this case, the Plaintiffs are attempting to bring a state law claim against the Goose Creek

Police Department. However, the proper party for a claim against the Goose Creek Police

Department is the City itself. Therefore, the undersigned respectfully requests that the Court

dismiss the Plaintiffs’ negligence, gross negligence, and recklessness claim asserted against the

Goose Creek Police Department.

II. Plaintiffs’ negligence, gross negligence, and recklessness claim against Defendant
Chief LJ Roscoe is also improper under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act.

Based on the four corners of the Plaintiff’s Complaint, it appears that the Plaintiffs bring

this action against Defendant Chief LJ Roscoe in her official capacity. Under the Tort Claims Act,

however, an employee of a governmental entity who commits a tort while acting within the scope

of her official duty is generally not liable. S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-70(a). The Act provides that

where the “employee is individually named, the agency or political subdivision for which the

employee was acting must be substituted as the party defendant.” S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-70(c).

This Court has confirmed that, “when an entity is sued because of the alleged tort of an employee

acting within the scope of his or her employment, the Tort Claims Act provides that only the

agency shall be named as a party.” Kinard v. Greenville Police Dep't, No. 10-cv-3246, 2011 WL

3439292, at *6 (D.S.C. Aug. 5, 2011).

Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges that “Defendant Chief LJ Roscoe was at all times relevant

acting under color of law and in the course and scope of their duties as employees, agents, officers,

3
 2:23-cv-01519-DCN Date Filed 04/17/23 Entry Number 8 Page 4 of 4

and/or Chief of the Goose Creek Police Department.” (Dkt. No. 1-1 at 3.) The Complaint further

states that Chief Roscoe “is sued in her representative capacity as the Chief of the Goose Creek

Police Department pursuant to the South Carolina Tort Claims Act that makes the employing entity

liable for the torts of its employees.” The foregoing allegation of the Plaintiffs’ Complaint is

consistent with the statutory and case law cited above that states that only the entity for which the

employee was acting shall be named as a defendant. Thus, the City of Goose Creek is the only

proper defendant for purposes of the Plaintiffs’ state tort claim against Chief Roscoe.

Consequently, this claim must be dismissed.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated herein, Defendants Goose Creek Police Department

and Chief LJ Roscoe respectfully request that the Court grant their Motion to Dismiss as to the

Plaintiffs’ claims against them.

Respectfully submitted this 17th day of April, 2023.

RICHARDSON, PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, P.A.

/s/ Drew Hamilton Butler

Drew Hamilton Butler (Federal ID No.: 8083)
James E. Haarsgaard (Federal ID No.: 12298)
235 Magrath Darby Blvd., Suite 100
Mount Pleasant, South Carolina 29464
dbutler@richardsonplowden.com
jhaarsgaard@richardsonplowden.com
Phone: (843) 805-6550
Fax: (843) 805-6599

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS GOOSE CREEK

POLICE DEPARTMENT, CITY OF GOOSE CREEK,
AND CHIEF LJ ROSCOE