Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_13-cv-00918/USCOURTS-almd-3_13-cv-00918-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

WILLIAM BERNARD JAMES, )

#277 487, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-CV-918-TMH 

) [WO]

STATE OF ALABAMA, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, a state inmate proceeding pro se, files this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against

the State of Alabama and the Honorable Albert Johnson complaining that he has been denied

access to the courts. He seeks an order directing Defendants to allow his Rule 32 petition

to be heard on the merits as he is indigent and unable to pay the full filing fee but indicates

he could make monthly payments in satisfaction thereof. Upon review of the complaint, the

court concludes that dismissal of this case prior to service of process is appropriate under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).1

I. DISCUSSION

A. Judge Johnson

i. Damages

A prisoner who is allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in this court will have his complaint 1

screened in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Thisscreening procedure requires

the court to dismiss a prisoner’s civil action prior to service of process if it determines that the complaint is

frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claimupon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary damages from

a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).

Case 3:13-cv-00918-WKW-CSC Document 4 Filed 01/07/14 Page 1 of 6
Plaintiff’s claims about actions taken by Judge Johnson in his judicial capacity during

state court proceedings over which he had jurisdiction are due to be dismissed. The law is

well established that a state judge is absolutely immune from civil liability for acts taken

pursuant to his judicial authority. Forrester v. White, 484 U. S. 219, 227-229 (1988); Paisey

v. Vitale in and for Broward County, 807 F.2d 889 (11 Cir. 1986); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 th

U.S. 349 (1978). Accordingly, any claim for monetary damages Plaintiff might seek against

this defendant are “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory” and are, therefore,

subject to dismissal under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (iii). Neitzke

v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).

ii. Non-Final Orders

To the extent Plaintiff seeks relief from adverse decisions or actions of a state court

which are not yet final, he is entitled to no relief from this court on such claims as there is

an adequate remedy at law. Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234, 1242 (11 Cir. 2000) (“In order

th

to receive declaratory or injunctive relief, plaintiff[] must establish that there was a

[constitutional] violation, that there is a serious risk of continuing irreparable injury if the

relief is not granted, and the absence of an adequate remedy at law.”). Specifically,

Plaintiff could appeal any non-final order issued or action taken by the state court to the

appropriate higher state court. Since state law provides an adequate remedy for Plaintiff

to challenge non-final orders, he is “not entitled to declaratory or injunctive relief in this

case.” Id. at 1243. Thus, any claim challenging a non-final order issued or action taken

2

Case 3:13-cv-00918-WKW-CSC Document 4 Filed 01/07/14 Page 2 of 6
by Judge Johnson subject to summary dismissal in accordance with the directives of 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

iii. Final Orders

 To the extent Plaintiff seeks injunctive and/or declaratory relief from orders issued

by a state court which have become final in accordance with state law, this court lacks

jurisdiction to render such judgment in an action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. “The

Rooker-Feldman doctrine prevents . . . lower federal courts from exercising jurisdiction over

cases brought by ‘state-court losers’ challenging ‘state-court judgments rendered before the

district court proceedings commenced.’ Exxon Mobil Corp. V. Saudi Basic Industries Corp.,

544 U.S. 280, 284, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005).” Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S.

459, 460, 126 S.Ct. 1198, 1199 (2006). Although “Rooker-Feldman is a narrow doctrine,”

it remains applicable to bar Plaintiff from proceeding before this court as this case is

“brought by [a] state-court loser[] complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments

rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review

and rejection of those judgments. 544 U.S. at 284, 125 S.Ct. [at] 1517.” Lance, 546 U.S.

at 464, 125 S.Ct. At 1201; District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462,

486 (1983) (federal district courts “do not have jurisdiction . . . over challenges to state court

decisions in particular cases arising out of judicial proceedings even if those challenges

allege that the state court’s action was unconstitutional.”). Moreover, a § 1983 action is

3

Case 3:13-cv-00918-WKW-CSC Document 4 Filed 01/07/14 Page 3 of 6
inappropriate either to compel or to appeal a particular course of action by a state court.2

Datz v. Kilgore, 51 F.3d 252, 254 (11 Cir. 1995) (§ 1983 suit arising from alleged erroneous th

decisions of a state court is merely a prohibited appeal of the state court judgment); see also

Rolleston v. Eldridge, 848 F.2d 163 (11 Cir. 1988). th

In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that dismissal of any request for relief

from final orders issued or actions undertaken by Judge Johnson during matters related to

Plaintiff’s state court post-conviction proceedings is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B)(i). See Clark v. State of Georgia Pardons and Paroles Board, 915 F.2d 636 3

(11 Cir. 1990); see also Neitzke, 490 U.S. 319. th

B. State of Alabama

Plaintiff names the State of Alabama as a defendant. The State of Alabama is

immune from suit. Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (1986). Moreover, “a State is not a

‘person’ within the meaning of § 1983....” Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S.

58, 65 (1989). Thus, Plaintiff’s claims against the State of Alabama are “based on an

If Plaintiff seeks to challenge rulings made by the Circuit Court for Russell County, he may file an 2

appropriate motion with the trial court and/or with the appropriate appellate court. 

The court also notes that federal district courts have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature 3

of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or one of its agencies to perform a

specific duty, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, but the federal courts are without jurisdiction to issue writs compelling

action by state courts and officials in the performance of their duties where mandamus is the only relief

sought. Moye v. Clerk, DeKalb County Superior Court, 474 F.2d 1275, 1276 (5 Cir. 1973); Russell v. th

Knight, 488 F.2d 96, 97 (5 Cir. 1973); Davis v. Lansing, 851 F.2d 72, 74 (2 Cir. 1988); Gurley v. Superior th nd

Court of Mecklenburg County, 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4 Cir. 1969). th

4

Case 3:13-cv-00918-WKW-CSC Document 4 Filed 01/07/14 Page 4 of 6
indisputably meritless legal theory” and are due to be dismissed pursuant to the provisions

of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (iii). Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).

II. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff’s

complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice prior to service of process in accordance with the

directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (iii);

It is further 

ORDERED that on or before January 21, 2014, Plaintiff may file an objection to the

Recommendation. Any objection filed must clearly identify the findings in the Magistrate

Judge's Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects. Frivolous, conclusive or general

objections will not be considered by the District Court. Plaintiff is advised that this

Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable.

Failure to file a written objection to the proposed findings and recommendations in

the Magistrate Judge's report shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District

Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar a party from attacking on appeal factual

findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain

error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5 Cir. 1982). See Stein th

v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of th

Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981) (en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the th

5

Case 3:13-cv-00918-WKW-CSC Document 4 Filed 01/07/14 Page 5 of 6
decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on

September 30, 1981.

Done this 7 day of January, 2014. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6

Case 3:13-cv-00918-WKW-CSC Document 4 Filed 01/07/14 Page 6 of 6