A federal magistrate recommends denying several motions filed in a prisoner civil case.
Phyllis Yahdina Overtstreet U Deen v. Sc Attorney General the State of
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
A federal magistrate recommends denying several motions filed in a prisoner civil case.
Why it matters
In Deen v. SC Attorney General, a U.S. Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in a pro se civil action filed by Phyllis Yahdina Overstreet-U-Deen, a South Carolina prisoner. The magistrate recommended denying multiple motions filed in the case, including a motion requesting various relief and a motion for a preliminary injunction. The core reasoning was that the motions were procedurally defective, legally inapplicable, or premature given that the case has not yet been served on defendants.
Who it affects
This ruling primarily affects Plaintiff Overstreet-U-Deen, a South Carolina prisoner pursuing this civil action without a lawyer. It also has practical relevance to other pro se litigants, as it illustrates procedural requirements such as signing one's own motions and the necessity of proper service before seeking a preliminary injunction.
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 28, 2026
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible appeal to the circuit court.
View possible path
- Decision issued Jul 28, 2026
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible appeal to the circuit court
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
District court
Decision issued
Jul 28, 2026
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
This case began when Plaintiff Phyllis Yahdina Overstreet-U-Deen was separated from a group filing in another case and assigned her own civil action number in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. After a Fourth Circuit appeal was dismissed, the case returned to the district court, where the plaintiff filed several motions that the magistrate judge reviewed. The first motion (ECF No. 23) was a lengthy 27-page filing seeking to vacate a prior court order, remand the case, seek recusal, and obtain additional findings under 28 U.S.C. Section 1602 and Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The magistrate found this motion should be denied. The motion appeared to have been authored by another prisoner, Crawford, and referenced a document number that did not exist in this case. The legal provisions cited were also found inapplicable: Section 1602 is part of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which applies to actual foreign states, not to the plaintiff here, and Rule 52 applies only after a trial on the facts, which has not occurred. The second motion (ECF No. 24) sought a preliminary injunction and an extension of time. The magistrate recommended denying it for multiple reasons. First, it was signed by Crawford, who is not a party to this action, rather than by the plaintiff herself, violating Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Second, the allegations in the motion appeared to concern Crawford's situation, not the plaintiff's. Third, the motion was premature because defendants have not yet been served and therefore cannot receive the required notice before a preliminary injunction is issued. The source text also references a third motion (ECF No. 27) but the provided text does not include the full analysis of that motion. No dissent is present, as this is a magistrate judge's report and recommendation rather than a final ruling by an Article III judge.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Phyllis Yahdina Overtstreet-U-Deen, ) C/A No. 9:25-cv-01527-BHH-MHC ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ) S.C. Attorney General, ) The State of South Carolina, ) The S.C. Dept of Corrections, ) The S.C.D.C. General Counsel, ) Bryan Stirling, ) The S.C.D.C. Director of Medical, ) Warden James, A.W. Smith, A.W. McDuffy, ) Major Meeks, Sgt. Crowley, Nurse Miller, ) Warden Stonebreaker, ) The United States Congress, ) The Catholic Arch Diocese and The Pope, ) Mr. Lawrenz, The Well Path Center, ) The 194 Member States of the United ) Nations, The County of Richland SC, ) The County of Kershaw, The County of ) Horry, Adair F. Buroughs, The United States ) Senate, ) ) Defendants. ) ) This is a civil action filed by Plaintiff Phyllis Yahdina Overstreet-U-Deen, proceeding pro se. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), pretrial proceedings in this action have been referred to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge. This case was originally filed by Plaintiff, South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC) inmate Lawrence L. Crawford (Crawford), and two other plaintiffs in case number 9:24- cv-04660-BHH-MHC (24-4660). On March 10, 2025, the Court issued an Order (ECF No. 1) directing the Clerk of Court to terminate Plaintiff as a plaintiff in case number 24-4660, assign a separate civil action number to Plaintiff,1 and file the complaint in the first action as the Complaint in this action.2 Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in this case on May 28, 2025. ECF No. 12. This case was stayed pending the Fourth Circuit’s consideration of the appeal. ECF No. 18. On July 24, 2026, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a mandate dismissing Plaintiff’s appeal. ECF No. 36. MOTION AT ECF NO. 23 On August 6, 2025, Plaintiff filed a rambling 27-page Motion (Motion Requesting Various Relief) titled “AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS GIVING JUDICIAL NOTICE; NOTICE OF SUBSEQUENT NOTICE OF APPEAL AND MOTION TO REMAND; MOTION TO VACATE THE ORDER DOCUMENT NO. 36 FILED JULY 22, 2025 FOR FRAUD UPON THE COURT, DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS, VIOLATION OF RIGHTS UNDER THE F.S.I.A. AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTION, ALSO DUE TO VAGUENESS CHALLENGING THE S. C. DISTRICT COURT’S JURISDICTION TO ISSUE IT; MOTION TO RENEW THE MOTION FOR RECUSAL; MOTION TO SEEK ADDITIONAL FINDING PURSUANT TO RULE 52 AND 28 U.S.C. § 1602.” ECF No. 23. In an unsigned letter filed with the Motion, Plaintiff asserts that she is “SEEKING TO TIMELY VACATE THE COURT’S RECENT ORDER FILED JULY 22, 2025[,] AND [IS] FILING SUBSEQUENT NOTICE TO APPEAL THAT ORDER AND HAVE THE CASE REMANDED BACK DOWN FOR ADDITIONAL CONCLUSIONS OF LAW UNDER RULE 52.” ECF No. 23-1. 1 The other two plaintiffs in case number 24-4660 were terminated as plaintiffs in that case and separate case numbers were assigned to each of those plaintiffs. 2 Thus, Crawford is the sole plaintiff in case number 24-4660, and Plaintiff is the sole plaintiff in this case. At the time Plaintiff filed her motion, there was no document number 36 in the present case. It appears Crawford authored the Motion and is referring to an Order at Doc. No. 36 in Crawford’s case (24-04660). To the extent Plaintiff is referring to the Order entered in this case on July 22, 2025 (ECF No. 18), it is recommended that the Motion be denied. Plaintiff has provided no basis for the Order to be overturned as the Motion merely reiterates earlier arguments. Although additional findings are sought under 28 U.S.C. § 1602 and Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, these provisions are inapplicable to this case. Section 1602 is part of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). However, Plaintiff has alleged no facts to indicate that she is a foreign sovereign such that § 1602 is not applicable. See, e.g., Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U.S. 677, 697 (2004) (discussing claims by actual foreign states under the FSIA). Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures pertains to findings and conclusions by the Court as to an action tried on the facts without a jury. This case is not in proper form and has not been served. There has been no trial, and no findings and conclusions have been made by this Court in this case. Thus, it is recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 23) be denied. MOTION AT ECF NO. 24: On August 6, 2025, Plaintiff filed a pleading titled “MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO PLACE IN PROPER FORM ONCE COURT RULES ON MOTION FOR PRELMINARY INJUNCTION AND MOTION TO MOTION THERFOR.” ECF No. 24. This Motion is signed by Crawford (who is not a party to this action) and is not signed by Plaintiff. See id. at 6. As noted in the Proper Form Order, “[a]ll documents requiring Plaintiff’s signature shall be signed with Plaintiff’s full legal name written in Plaintiff’s own handwriting.” ECF No. 4 at 3. Moreover, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[e]very pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s name-- or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a) (further providing that the court “must strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly corrected after being called to the . . . party’s attention”). Review of the Motion reveals that it contains allegations by Crawford about incidents that allegedly involve Crawford. There is no indication that the allegations involve Plaintiff. Moreover, the Motion should be denied because it is premature as service has not been authorized, Defendants have not been served, and Defendants have not answered or otherwise pleaded. “The court may issue a preliminary injunction only on notice to the adverse party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1). Thus, it is recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 24) be denied.3 MOTION AT ECF NO. 27: On September 2, 2025, Plaintiff filed a pleading titled “AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS GIVING JUDICIAL NOTICE; PETITION TO REMOVE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 2679, 1602-1612 ET. SEQ. OF THE FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY ACT; M
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.