Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_07-cv-00709/USCOURTS-almd-2_07-cv-00709-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

The statute provides, in pertinent part: “[T]he court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines 1

that . . . (B) the action or appeal– (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted;

or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

GENE COGGINS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CASE NO. 2:07-cv-709-WKW

v. ) [wo]

)

MARK E. FULLER, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This action is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Appear in Forma

Pauperis (Doc. # 2) and Motion to Remove Any and All Opinions (Doc. # 3). The court

construes the Motion to Appear in Forma Pauperis as a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. It

is ORDERED that the motion (Doc #2) is GRANTED.

Upon review of the complaint filed in this case, the court concludes that dismissal of the

complaint prior to service of process is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).1

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brings this action against defendant Judge Mark Fuller, a

district court judge in the Middle District of Alabama. Plaintiff alleges that Judge Fuller has (1)

denied him the right to due process under both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the

Constitution in cases the plaintiff has brought before Judge Fuller, (2) violated his Seventh

Amendment right to a jury trial, (3) deprived him of his right to a speedy trial, and (4) violated

criminal laws by breaking his oath of office. Plaintiff seeks ten million dollars in damages and

asks that the amount be tripled every thirty days from the date the complaint was filed for

Case 2:07-cv-00709-WKW-CSC Document 4 Filed 09/26/07 Page 1 of 3
2

“additional appeals or intentional delays.” (Compl. 7.)

A district court may conclude a case has little or no chance of success and dismiss the

complaint before service of process when it determines from the face of the complaint that the

factual allegations are “clearly baseless” or that the legal theories are “indisputably meritless.” 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). A claim is frivolous as a matter of law where the

defendant is immune from suit. Id. 

A judge is immune from suit for actions taken in his official capacity unless he acted in

the “‘clear absence of all jurisdiction.’” Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234, 1239 (11th Cir. 2000)

(quoting Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall) 335, 351 (1871)); see also Dennis v. Sparks, 449

U.S. 24, 27-29 (1980); Sun v. Forrester, 939 F.2d 924, 925 (11th Cir. 1991). Coggins’s

allegations made emanate from actions taken by Judge Fuller in his judicial capacity during or

relating to court proceedings over which he had jurisdiction. Judge Fuller is thus immune from

suit for his actions in the lawsuits brought by Coggins. Therefore, Coggins’s claims for damages

against Judge Fuller are “based on indisputably meritless legal theory” and are due to be

dismissed under the provisions of § 1915(e)(2)(B). See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.

 Coggins also asserts Judge Fuller is guilty of perjury and breaking his oath of office. To

the extent Coggins seeks to pursue criminal charges against Judge Fuller, his claims are due to be

dismissed because a private citizen cannot institute criminal proceedings in federal court. See

Linda R. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973) (a “private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable

interest in the prosecution or non-prosecution of another”); United States ex rel Savage v. Arnold,

403 F. Supp. 172, 174 (E.D. Pa. 1975) (finding private criminal complaints cannot be filed in

federal court).

Case 2:07-cv-00709-WKW-CSC Document 4 Filed 09/26/07 Page 2 of 3
3

It is the ORDER of the Court that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. #2) is granted.

2. Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § §

1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (iii).

3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Remove Any and All Opinions (Doc. #3) is DENIED as moot.

An appropriate judgment will be entered dismissing this action.

Done this 26th day of September, 2007.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00709-WKW-CSC Document 4 Filed 09/26/07 Page 3 of 3