The Voice for Dj J Watts & TMMG Brands

Florence, SC – A legal battle unfolding in Florence County’s Court of Common Pleas under case number 2023CP2101574 has drawn attention to a pressing question: Does the South Carolina court system provide equal access to justice regardless of financial status?

At the center of the dispute is James R. Watson Jr., a Florence resident, who claims he has been repeatedly denied the ability to move his case forward because of filing fees he cannot afford. According to Watson, his requests for a fee waiver — based on documented financial hardship — have been rejected multiple times, effectively blocking him from pursuing his claims.

The Allegations

Watson alleges that the repeated denials amount to economic discrimination within the judicial system. He argues that such practices undermine the principle of equal justice under the law, particularly for those unable to pay the “going rate” for court access.

In filings and communications with the court, Watson has stated:

“Because of these denials, I will not be able to seek justice to the highest extent… this is systemic, creating discrimination in the system.”

He is seeking reimbursement of filing fees and $30,000 in damages for pain and suffering, plus double the amount for every denial of his filing rights.

Constitutional Angle

The dispute may also raise constitutional issues under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal statute that allows individuals to sue for violations of constitutional rights by state actors. Watson has indicated his intent to file in federal court, naming Judge H. Steven DeBerry, IV, the presiding judge in the 12th Judicial Circuit, as a defendant, alongside state disciplinary bodies.

The central claim: that the denial of filing fee waivers violates the Equal Protection Clause and the right of access to the courts.

Wider Implications

Legal observers note that while filing fees are a routine part of court operations, states are required to provide alternatives — such as in forma pauperis (IFP) status — for indigent litigants. If proven, systemic denial of such accommodations could raise serious constitutional concerns.

“This case could set an important precedent for South Carolina and beyond,” said a Columbia-based civil rights attorney not connected to the case. “Access to the courts is a cornerstone of democracy. If financial barriers are applied unevenly, the system risks disenfranchising its most vulnerable citizens.”

Next Steps

Watson has signaled his plan to escalate the matter:

• State Court: Continuing to seek relief in the Florence County Common Pleas system.

• Federal Court: Filing a § 1983 complaint seeking monetary damages and policy reforms.

• Public Awareness: Drawing attention to the issue through press outreach and documentation of every denial.

For now, the docket for 2023CP2101574 remains active but stalled, with no hearing scheduled until the filing fee dispute is resolved.

Editor’s Note:

The Florence County Clerk of Court’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment regarding their fee waiver policies or the specific case.