The South Carolina Supreme Court has reversed a lower court's decision to certify a class of inmates who alleged they were sexually assaulted while in the custody of the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC) and the South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice (SCDJJ). This ruling, filed on July 22, 2026, affects thousands of inmates who may have been victims of sexual assault from 2012 to the present. The court's decision emphasizes the complexities of class action lawsuits and the necessity for individual assessments in such cases.
The case, Calvin Henson v. SCDC (Docket No. 2025-000689), involved named plaintiffs Calvin Henson, Daniel James Collins, Jason Robinson, and Russell Taylor, who filed the lawsuit in their individual capacities as well as representatives of a larger class. They claimed that the prison officials were negligent in failing to implement proper policies and procedures to protect inmates from sexual assaults. The plaintiffs sought to certify a class that could potentially include thousands of inmates, arguing that common issues of law and fact predominated over individual issues.
Initially, the circuit court agreed to certify two classes of similarly situated plaintiffs under Rule 23(a) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. These classes included all individuals under the custody of SCDC or SCDJJ who were victims of sexual assault from 2012 until the present. The plaintiffs argued that the class could include anywhere from 1,600 to 64,000 inmates for SCDC and 70 to 2,800 juveniles for SCDJJ. However, SCDC and SCDJJ appealed the certification order, claiming it was not immediately appealable.
The appellate court dismissed the appeal, leading SCDC and SCDJJ to seek a writ of certiorari from the South Carolina Supreme Court. The court agreed to hear the case, focusing on the appropriateness of the class certification. The Supreme Court ultimately reversed the certification order, stating that the case should proceed only in the individual capacity of each named plaintiff.
The court ruled, "We reverse the certification order and remand the case to the circuit court for discovery and trial only in the individual capacity of each named plaintiff." This decision highlighted the need for individual trials to determine the facts surrounding each inmate's experience, as the court expressed concerns over the manageability of a class action in this context.
In its ruling, the court examined the requirements for class certification under Rule 23(a), particularly focusing on the commonality requirement. The court noted that while there were common questions of law, the individual circumstances of each inmate's case would require separate findings of fact. The court emphasized that the class action mechanism must provide a more efficient means of resolving the litigation than individual lawsuits, which it determined was not the case here.
The ruling has significant implications for the plaintiffs and the broader legal landscape regarding class actions in South Carolina. It underscores the challenges of certifying classes in cases involving allegations of personal injury, where individual circumstances can greatly differ. The court's decision suggests that future class actions may face similar scrutiny, particularly in cases where the individual claims involve complex factual determinations.
Moving forward, the plaintiffs in Henson's case will need to pursue their claims individually, which may complicate their ability to seek justice. The ruling may deter other potential class actions involving similar allegations against state agencies, as the threshold for certification has been raised. The decision also reinforces the importance of individual assessments in cases of alleged negligence, particularly in the context of sexual assault claims within correctional facilities.
As for what’s next, the plaintiffs can pursue their individual claims in the circuit court. There is no indication in the ruling that the case will be appealed further, but the implications of this decision may resonate in future cases involving class actions in South Carolina. The court's emphasis on the necessity for individualized trials may influence how similar cases are approached in the future.