Document Overview
SC 9th Circuit Common Pleas Case number: 2025-CP-10-05095Filing Date: August 12, 2026
Document: Plaintiffs' Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment Pursuant to Rule 59(e), SCRCP
Document Type: Plaintiffs’ Rule 59(e), SCRCP motion to alter or amend the August 3, 2026 judgment dismissing the action with prejudice; seeks correction or vacatur of the dismissal, reconsideration of merits and ADA rulings, and findings sufficient for appellate review.
Includes: Detailed challenges to the six Rule 11 sanctions predicates, dismissal of Counts II, IV, V, and VI, denial of leave to amend, and the unresolved Rule 41(a)(2) voluntary-dismissal motion. Includes three exhibits: record-contrast tables concerning the August 3 Order, a textual-provenance report comparing the Order with defense filings, and the November 5, 2025 service notice with Attorney Pettis’s emails.
Read it now
Executive Summary
Plaintiffs James C. McNeil and Meaghan Poyer, proceeding pro se, move under South Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the August 3, 2026 order dismissing their case with prejudice as a Rule 11 sanction.
They contend that the six factual findings supporting sanctions are contradicted by the docket record, that the court erred in dismissing several claims under Rule 12(b)(6), denying leave to amend, and rejecting their ADA accommodation requests.
They also assert they lacked notice and an opportunity to respond to certain sanction predicates, that the court failed to consider lesser sanctions, and that their pending motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice was never ruled on. They ask the court to vacate the dismissal and reinstate their claims, amend or strike the sanction findings, reconsider the merits and ADA rulings, rule on or grant voluntary dismissal without prejudice, and provide findings adequate for appellate review.
Legal Significance
Plaintiffs timely seek Rule 59(e) relief from the August 3, 2026 judgment that dismissed the entire action with prejudice, challenging both the merits dismissals and the dispositive Rule 11 sanctions. The motion asserts that the six factual predicates for sanctions are unsupported or contradicted by the docket, that plaintiffs lacked predicate-specific notice and an opportunity to respond, and that the court failed to apply or explain the heightened standard and lesser-sanction analysis required for a case-ending sanction. It also asks the court to reconsider dismissal of Counts II, IV, V, and VI, denial of leave to amend, and denial of ADA accommodations, while requesting a ruling on plaintiffs’ previously unaddressed Rule 41(a)(2) request for voluntary dismissal without prejudice.
If granted, the motion could vacate the prejudicial judgment and restore the claims or alternatively convert the disposition to one without prejudice; if denied, it preserves plaintiffs’ asserted record, procedural, and legal errors for appeal.
Instead, Wheeler denied in 48 hours, Plaintiffs served a notice of Appeal on September 13, 2026, and "The Case of the Disappearing Woman" is before the United States Supreme Court.