Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-5_15-cv-00978/USCOURTS-alnd-5_15-cv-00978-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

ERNEST B. DIGGS, Jr., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 5:15-cv-00978-WMA-JEO

 )

RICHARD ALLEN, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

The magistrate judge filed a report and recommendation on October 26, 2015,

recommending that this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action be dismissed without prejudice

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) because it is frivolous, fails to state a claim upon

which relief can be granted, and seeks monetary relief from defendants who are

immune from suit. The plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint on November

3, 2015. (Doc. 7). He also filed objections to the report and recommendation on

November 9, 2015. (Doc. 8). The objections point to no factual or legal errors in the

report and recommendation. (Id. at 1). Instead, the plaintiff simply asks that his

motion for leave to amend the complaint be granted. (Id.) 

The plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint so thatstyle of this case reflectsthat

his name is Ernest Braxton Diggs Jr., not Ernest L. Diggs, the name set out in the

1

FILED

 2015 Nov-12 PM 03:58

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 5:15-cv-00978-WMA-JEO Document 9 Filed 11/12/15 Page 1 of 5
style of the magistrate judge’s orders and report and recommendation. (Doc. 7). A

review of the plaintiff’s initial complaint reflects that he identified himself as Ernest

B. Diggs, Jr. (Doc. 1 at 1). Therefore, the identification of the plaintiff in the

magistrate judge’s orders and the report and recommendation is simply a scrivener’s

error, and no amendment to his complaint is necessary. 

By amending his complaint, the plaintiff also seeks to correct factual errors he

made in his initial complaint. (Id.) With the exception of minimal changes to the

facts and his request for relief, the plaintiff’s initial complaint (doc. 1 at 1-9) and the

proposed amended complaint (doc. 7 at 3-9) are virtually identical. For the reasons

that follow, the proposed changes would not entitle the plaintiff to relief. 

In his proposed amended complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the refusal to

place extra postage on his legal mail in November 2001 delayed the filing of the

Attorney General’s copy of an application for rehearing, and caused the application

to be overruled by the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. (Doc. 7 at 5, 7). In late

November and early December 2001, the State of Alabama moved to strike the

plaintiff’s petition for writ of certiorari “due to a violation of due process,” namely,

the plaintiff’s failure to timely send them his application for rehearing. (Id.) On

February 22, 2002, the Alabama Supreme Court denied his petition for writ of

certiorari. (Id. at 5-6). The plaintiff adds that “recently prior to the filing of this

2

Case 5:15-cv-00978-WMA-JEO Document 9 Filed 11/12/15 Page 2 of 5
complaint,” he learned the Alabama Supreme Court’s February 22, 2002, decision

was not a denial, but an order “striking the Petition from the” records. (Id. at 6). He

complains the defendants’ actionsresulted in the procedural default of his state court

case and a federal habeas corpus petition. (Id. at 7). For relief, he demands “the

Procedural Default judgment” be declared void, his habeas corpus petition be granted,

and the prison mail room policy be changed. (Id. at 8). 

It is within the court’s discretion to deny a motion to amend where the

amendment would be futile. Vanderburg v. Donaldson, 259 F.3d 1321, 1326-27

(11th Cir. 2001). The fact that the plaintiff “recently” discovered that the Alabama

Supreme Court February 22, 2002, decision struck his petition for writ of certiorari,

instead of his previous belief that the decision was a denial of the petition, is of no

consequence to the statute of limitations question. As set out by the magistrate

judge, the plaintiff has known since November 2001 that some of the Department of

Corrections’ defendants refused to place additional postage on his legal mail. (Doc. 

6 at 6). As such, the plaintiff’s claim would still be barred by the applicable statute

of limitations.1

1 The plaintiff has never revealed the case numbers or procedural history of convictions he

was challenging in state and federal court. The court has examined the Public Access to Court

Electronic Records (PACER), an electronic public access service that allows a user to obtain case

and docket information online from federal appellate, district, and bankruptcycourts, and discovered

the plaintiff filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Alabama on February 21, 2003. See Ernest B. Diggs, Jr. v. Billy Mitchem,

3

Case 5:15-cv-00978-WMA-JEO Document 9 Filed 11/12/15 Page 3 of 5
Moreover, a portion of the relief requested in the proposed amended complaint

challengesthe plaintiff’s conviction and the fact or duration of his confinement. Such

challenges may only be accomplished by way of a petition for writ of habeas corpus,

an avenue the plaintiff unsuccessfully attempted over a decade ago. See Preiser v.

Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); supra, n.1. Accordingly, to the extent the

plaintiff’s complaint can be read to request a release from custody, such relief is not

appropriate in an action under § 1983 and any claims in that regard are due to be

Warden, 1:03-cv-00104-WS-M, (doc. 1). His habeas petition reveals that on February 22, 2002, the

Alabama Supreme Court denied certiorari review as to Rule 32 petitions bearing the case numbers

CC-98-3672.60 through CC-98-3718.60. (Id. at 5). On October 6, 2004, United States Magistrate

Judge Bert W. Milling, Jr. recommended dismissal of the habeas petition because all of the claims

raised therein were procedurally defaulted. (Id., doc. 12). Notably, none of the stated reasons for

the default were for the reasons the plaintiff now raises in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Instead, the

claims were defaulted because the state court found the claims had not been raised at trial, on direct

appeal or because they were not pleaded with sufficient specificity, as required by Rule 32.2(a) and

Rule 32.6(b) of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure. (Id. at 3-8). The plaintiff did not argue

cause and prejudice for the default, or that a miscarriage of justice would occur if the claims were

not heard. (Id. at 8-9). Although the plaintiff filed objections to the report and recommendation on

October 10, 2004, and argued cause and prejudice as well as the miscarriage of justice exceptions

to default, none of the reasons he presented were the allegations he now raises in this 42 U.S.C. §

1983 action. (Id., doc. 13). On October 25, 2004, Senior United States District Judge W.B. Hand

adopted and accepted the report and recommendation, and denied the habeas petition. (Id., doc. 14). 

On March 14, 2005, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied the plaintiff’s motion for

certificate of appealability and in forma pauperis application. (Id., doc. 24; See Ernest B. Diggs, Jr.

v. Billy Mitchem, Warden, No. 04-16053-E. 

The plaintiff also has filed two subsequent habeas petitions regarding the same convictions,

which were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as successive petitions. See Ernest B. Diggs, Jr. v.

DeWayne Estes, Warden, Case no. 1:13-cv-00052-CG-M (S.D. Ala., filed Feb. 1, 2013, and denied

September 23, 2013); Ernest B. Diggs, Jr. v. Christopher Gordy, Warden, Case no. 1:15-cv-00442-

CG-C (S.D. Ala., filed July 15, 2015, and denied September 23, 2015). Nowhere in the pleadings

filed by the plaintiff in these cases did he allege the facts set out in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. 

4

Case 5:15-cv-00978-WMA-JEO Document 9 Filed 11/12/15 Page 4 of 5
dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A(b)(1). 

For all of the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint

(doc. 7) is denied on the grounds of futility. Having carefully reviewed and

considered de novo all the materials in the court file, including the report and

recommendation and the objections thereto, the court is of the opinion that the

magistrate judge’s report is due to be and is hereby ADOPTED and the

recommendation is ACCEPTED. Accordingly, the complaint is due to be dismissed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) because it is frivolous, fails to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted, and seeks monetary relief from defendants who are

immune. A Final Judgment will be entered.

DATED this 12th day of November, 2015.

_____________________________

WILLIAM M. ACKER, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5

Case 5:15-cv-00978-WMA-JEO Document 9 Filed 11/12/15 Page 5 of 5