Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_11-cv-00749/USCOURTS-almd-2_11-cv-00749-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

HENRY GAINES, #113 380, )

)

Plaintiff, ) 

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:11-CV-749-TFM

) [WO]

)

ALABAMA BOARD OF PARDONS )

AND PAROLES, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

Before the court is Plaintiff’s pleading filed in the captioned action styled Motion for

Consideration. In this pleading, Plaintiff states that he “seeks to bring to the Court’s

attention possible acts of judicial wrong-doing by the [undersigned] and his chosen

Magistrate Judge the Honorable T.F. Moorer.” Plaintiff has filed his motion, considered a

motion for reconsideration of the court’s January 20, 2012 judgment, in the captioned matter

and, therefore, the undersigned shall address said filing. 

Plaintiff complains that the court has gone out of its way to deny him fundamental

fairness, failed to comply with rules of procedure, misinterpreted state law, and singled him

out for “some sort of personal judicial denial or stonewalling.” Plaintiff further believes the

court has demonstrated preferential treatment towards Defendants by not serving his

complaint, has acted in the capacity of defense counsel for Defendants, and that the

undersigned was recruited by Magistrate Judge Moorer to deny Plaintiff his constitutional

Case 2:11-cv-00749-TMH-TFM Document 22 Filed 03/30/12 Page 1 of 4
The court notes Plaintiff’s repeated concern that the court improperly dismissed his complaint prior 1

to service after requiring him to pay an initial partial filing fee. Plaintiff is reminded, however, that the

court’s September 23, 2011 order clearly advised him that “notwithstanding payment of the initial partial

filing fee this court will dismiss this case prior to service of process if the court determines that the

action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief in accordance with the provisions

of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii) and (iii).” (See Doc. No. 5.) Plaintiff’s reliance on Herrick v. Collins,

914 F.2d 228 (11 Cir. 1990), to support his assertion of improper dismissal is misplaced. The Herrick case th

involved a situation where a district court sua sponte dismissed a civil rights complaint as frivolous after

requiring pro se prisoners plaintiffs to pay a partial filing fee. Id. at 229. The Herrick court found that the

district court should have determined whether the complaint was frivolous before it ordered the plaintiffs to

pay a partial filing fee and held that, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), “when the district court has granted an in

forma pauperis motion and required payment of a partial filing fee, the court must issue the summons.” Id.

at 229-30. The district court was, therefore, directed to reinstate the plaintiff’s complaint and issue summons

on the defendants. Id. Since issuance of the decision in Herrick, however, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 has been

significantly altered. The current version of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which became effective in 1996, allows a

court, as noted above, to dismiss a case “at any time” as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim,

“[n]otwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid.” 

-2-

rights of procedural process. 

1

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, this court must screen prisoners’ civil complaints

against government officials or entities and dismiss the complaints if they are frivolous,

malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. In pertinent part, § 1915A provides:

(a) Screening.--The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any

event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in

which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or

employee of a governmental entity.

(b) Grounds for dismissal.-On review, the court shall identify cognizable

claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the

complaint-

(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted; or

Case 2:11-cv-00749-TMH-TFM Document 22 Filed 03/30/12 Page 2 of 4
-3-

(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The language of the statute does not distinguish between complaints

filed in forma pauperis and those in which the requisite filing fee has been paid. The

procedure required by § 1915A is by its terms a screening process, to be applied sua sponte

and as early as possible in the litigation. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. See also 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2). 

Review and disposition of the instant matter was made in accordance with the

statutory provisions applicable to inmate civil actions. Such review was conducted in an

objective manner in accordance with the law applicable to the specific allegations and

theories of liability asserted in the complaint. Accordingly, while Plaintiff’s dissatisfaction

with the court’s rulings may provide a proper ground for appeal, his mere disagreement with

the court's judicial rulings does not support his subjective allegations that the court acted

improperly or exhibited bias. 

For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration of the

court’s January 20, 2012 judgment (Doc. No. 19) be DENIED. 

To the extent Plaintiff’s March 15, 2012 pleading may be considered a motion for

recusal, see 28 U.S.C. § 144, it is 

ORDERED that the motion (Doc. No. 19) is DENIED. See United States v. Meester,

762 F.2d 867, 884 (11 Cir. 1985) (citations omitted) (a motion for disqualification under th

§ 144 “must demonstrate that the alleged bias is personal as opposed to judicial in nature. .

Case 2:11-cv-00749-TMH-TFM Document 22 Filed 03/30/12 Page 3 of 4
-4-

. The alleged bias must stem from an extrajudicial source and result in an opinion on the

merits on some basis other than what the judge learned from his participation in the case.

Thus, a motion for disqualification may not ordinarily be based on the judge's rulings in the

same case.”); Loranger v. Stierheim, 10 F.3d 776, 780, 781 (11 Cir. 1994) (“as a general th

rule, a judge’s rulings in the same case are not valid grounds for recusal.” Mere adverse

rulings do not constitute the sort of pervasive bias that necessitates recusal.). 

Done this 30 day of March, 2012. th

 /s/ Truman M. Hobbs 

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:11-cv-00749-TMH-TFM Document 22 Filed 03/30/12 Page 4 of 4