The core of The Dreadful Pro-Se Schmalfeldt’s problem is not that he is trying to use an unconstitutional statute and whether the federal court would enforce it. He has an even more basic procedural issue. He is trying to use a criminal statute as the basis of a civil claim. When a pro se litigant tries that (lawyers never seem to make the mistake), the court throws out the complaint without having to get into the issue of the law’s constitutionality. Here’s what the court said the last time a pro se litigant tried to use § 16-7-150 as the basis for a civil claim—
In short, he cannot bring a civil action for alleged violations of criminal statutes, see S.C. Code Ann. § 17-1-10[.]
Sanders v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC, et al., Case No. 15-CV-2313-JMC-PJG, Order and Opinion, ECF No. 103, (D.S.C. Sep. 27, 2016) at 6. (I suppose the reason the Cabin Boy™ missed this one is that it was issued the same day as the hearing in which Judge Hecker denied all of TDPS’s motions to dismiss in the Hoge v. Kimberlin, et al. lawsuit.)
As I said in today’s TKPOTD, I don’t expect to need my motion to dismiss after the Magistrate Judge reviews Schmalfeldt’s complaint.
Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen.
UPDATE—The Gentle Reader may wish to note that the last time the U. S. District had to rule on a case in which a pro se litigant was stupid enough to try to use the South Carolina’s criminal defamation statute as the basis for a civil claim was for a case filed in 2015. (The first two digits of the case number correspond to the year the case was filed.) So it’s been almost two years since a pro se litigant has filed such an inept defamation case in that court.