Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_04-cv-00744/USCOURTS-alsd-1_04-cv-00744-3/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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GABRIEL MADISON, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 04-00744-BH-B

CLAIR SANBORN, et al., :

Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This action is before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Motion for

Court Order and To Amend”. (hereinafter “Motion to Amend”). (Doc.

25). This motion has been referred to the undersigned pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2 (c)(4) for appropriate

action. Upon a careful review of Plaintiff’s Motion, the

undersigned recommends that the Motion to Amend (Doc. 25) be denied

for the reasons set forth herein.

I. Motion to Amend. (Doc. 25).

In his Complaint filed on November 19, 2004, Plaintiff, a

state inmate, alleged that he was dismissed as a student from Jeff

Davis Community College on August 25, 2004, due to complaints that

he had filed against Defendant Clair Sanborn. Plaintiff also

asserted claims against other defendants, who were subsequently

dismissed from this action due to Plaintiff’s failure to state a

Case 1:04-cv-00744-BH-B Document 27 Filed 02/26/07 Page 1 of 8
2

claim against them. Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Amend on

May, 18, 2006, seeking to add Ernest Marvin as a Defendant, and to

add additional claims against Defendant Sanborn.

Ernest Marvin executed an affidavit which was filed with the

Court, along with Defendant’s Special Report. In the affidavit,

Marvin states that “[p]rior to Fall Semester 2003, I asked Ms.

Clair Sanborn, who was then a fellow Adult Education instructor at

the Fountain correctional education facility, if she would take

over teaching Mr. Gabriel Madison, an inmate at Fountain

Correctional Center who had been in my Adult Education classes

since Fall Semester 1999.” (Doc. 21, Ex. 4). Marvin also indicates

that he advised Defendant Sanborn that Plaintiff had created

problems in his class and that he thought it would be better if

Plaintiff could be transferred. (Id.). According to Marvin,

Defendant Sanborn agreed and as a result, Plaintiff was enrolled in

her class for Fall Semester 2003. (Id.). In his Motion to Amend,

Plaintiff seeks to add Marvin as a Defendant and asserts

defamation, slander, and libel claims against him based on his

affidavit, which was filed with the Court, along with Defendant’s

Special Report. 

Plaintiff also seeks to add defamation, slander and libel

claims against Defendant Sanborn; however, the factual basis of the

claims against Sanborn is not clear. 

Case 1:04-cv-00744-BH-B Document 27 Filed 02/26/07 Page 2 of 8
3

II. Discussion.

Leave to amend a complaint after responsive pleadings have

been filed “shall be freely given when justice so requires.”

FED.R.CIV.P. 15(a); See Shipner v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 868 F.2d

401, 407 (11th Cir. 1989). “[T]he district court may consider such

factors as ‘bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant,

repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously

allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of the

allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of amendment.’” Nolin v.

Douglas County, 903 F.2d 1546, 1550 (11th Cir. 1990) (quoting Foman

v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 230 (1962)), overruled

on other grounds, McKinney v. Pate, 20 F.3d 1550, 1559 (11th Cir.

1994). Permission to amend may be denied when the claim, as

amended, is subject to dismissal. See Halliburton & Assoc. v.

Henderson, Few & Co., 774 F.2d 441, 444 (11th Cir. 1985).

Turning first to Plaintiff’s request to add Ernest Marvin as

a Defendant, the undersigned notes that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend

(Doc. 25) was filed on May 18, 2006; however, Marvin’s comments to

Sanborn occurred before fall semester 2003. Thus, it appears that

almost three years elapsed between these dates. In Alabama, the

statute of limitations for a § 1983 action is two years. Lufkin v.

McCallum, 956 F.2d 1104, 1106, 1108 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 506

U.S. 917 (1992); ALA. CODE § 6-2-38(l). Thus, to the extent that

Plaintiff is seeking to hold Marvin liable for statements he made

Case 1:04-cv-00744-BH-B Document 27 Filed 02/26/07 Page 3 of 8
 1

Defamation encompasses libel and slander. Libel is to defame

someone in a permanent medium, such as writing. BLACK’S LAW

DICTIONARY, at p. 935 (8th ed. 2004). Whereas, slander occurs in

a short-lived form, such as speech. Id. at 1421.

 2In Siegert, a psychologist sued his former supervisor for

sending a defamatory reference to his prospective employer. The

Supreme Court found that no constitutional right was violated

because defamation is a state tort claim and that the alleged

defamation did not occur during the termination of employment. 

Id. at 227, 233, 111 S.Ct. at 1791, 1794.

4

to Sanborn before the Fall 2003 Semester, such claims are futile

because they are barred by the statute of limitations. 

With respect to Plaintiff’s request to add defamation, libel,

and slander claims against Defendant Sanborn, the undersigned

observes that Plaintiff has not provided any factual bases for such

claims in his Motion. Section 1983 provides a remedy for a

violation “of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the

Constitution or laws of the United States.” Parratt v. Taylor, 451

U.S. 527, 535, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 1913 (1981), overruled on other

grounds by Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330-31, 106 S.Ct.

662, 664 (1986). Thus, to establish a claim under Section 1983,

Plaintiff is required to present factual grounds showing a

violation of “rights, privileges, or immunities” of this magnitude.

The gist of Plaintiff’s proposed claims against Defendant Sanborn

is defamation1 which “is a tort actionable under the law of most

States, but not a constitutional deprivation.” Siegert v. Gilley,

500 U.S. 226, 233, 111 S.Ct. 1789, 1794 (1991).2 An interest in

reputation is protected by state tort law, and is not a liberty or

Case 1:04-cv-00744-BH-B Document 27 Filed 02/26/07 Page 4 of 8
 3

In Paul, the plaintiff’s picture was in a police flyer

containing known shoplifters which was circulated to store

owners. Later, the shoplifting charges against plaintiff were

dismissed. Plaintiff sued because he feared that he would be

arrested for shoplifting if he entered a store and that his

employment opportunities would be impaired in the future, as

evidenced by his current employer discussing the flyer with him

and warning him that it must not happen again. The Supreme Court

held that plaintiff’s defamation claim did not state a claim

under section 1983 because there is no liberty or property

interest in one’s reputation. Id. at 694, 712, 96 S.Ct. at 1157,

1166.

 4

Notwithstanding this discussion, Plaintiff’s Motion in regard

to Defendant Sanborn is due to be denied for an alternate reason,

there is no documentation before the Court in the Motion

concerning Plaintiff’s specific claims against Defendant Sanborn. 

See Long v. Satz, 181 F.3d 1275, 1279 (11th Cir. 1999) (requiring

that the amendment be attached to the motion or the substance of

the amendment be included in the motion).

5

property interest protected by the Due Process Clause. Paul v.

Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 712, 96 S.Ct. 1155, 1165 (1976).3 Not only is

the factual bases for Plaintiff’s proposed defamation claim against

Defendant Sanborn unclear, but Plaintiff has proffered nothing

which suggests that such claims involve a violation of a

constitutional right; thus, the proposed amendment fails to state

a claim.4 Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s

proposed amendments appear futile, and should therefore be denied.

Furthermore, upon review, the undersigned has determined that

it is appropriate to convert Respondent’s Answer (Doc. 22) and

Special Report (Doc. 21) into a motion for summary judgment.

Unlike a traditional civil action where the parties file a motion

to dismiss or for summary judgment, in a prisoner civil rights

Case 1:04-cv-00744-BH-B Document 27 Filed 02/26/07 Page 5 of 8
6

action filed in this District, the Court converts Special Reports

and Answers into motions for summary judgment if, after review, the

Court determines that a claim or the action can be resolved based

on the evidence in the Court’s file. The undersigned notes that at

the time Plaintiff filed his Motion to Amend, this action had

already been pending eighteen months, and that to allow an

amendment at this late stage will result in further delay of this

action. See Brewer-Giorgio v. Producers Video, Inc., 216 F.3d 1281,

1284 (11th Cir. 2000) (affirming the denial of an amendment on the

finding of undue delay in filing the amendment when the amendment

filed one year after the action was filed and eight months after

the time allowed by the scheduling order for filing amendments had

expired).

III. Conclusion.

Based upon the foregoing reasons, the undersigned hereby

recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Doc. 25)be denied.

The attached sheet contains important information regarding

objections to this Report and Recommendation.

DONE this 26th day of February 2007.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-00744-BH-B Document 27 Filed 02/26/07 Page 6 of 8
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS

AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION

AND FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

1. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation or

anything in it must, within ten days of the date of service of this

document, file specific written objections with the clerk of court.

Failure to do so will bar a de novo determination by the district

judge of anything in the recommendation and will bar an attack, on

appeal, of the factual findings of the magistrate judge. See 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir.

1988). The procedure for challenging the findings and

recommendations of the magistrate judge is set out in more detail

in SD ALA LR 72.4 (June 1, 1997), which provides, in part, that:

A party may object to a recommendation entered by a

magistrate judge in a dispositive matter, that is, a

matter excepted by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), by filing

a “Statement of Objection to Magistrate Judge’s

Recommendation” within ten days after being served with

a copy of the recommendation, unless a different time

is established by order. The statement of objection

shall specify those portions of the recommendation to

which objection is made and the basis for the

objection. The objecting party shall submit to the

district judge, at the time of filing the objection, a

brief setting forth the party’s arguments that the

magistrate judge’s recommendation should be reviewed de

novo and a different disposition made. It is

insufficient to submit only a copy of the original

brief submitted to the magistrate judge, although a

copy of the original brief may be submitted or referred

to and incorporated into the brief in support of the

objection. Failure to submit a brief in support of the

objection may be deemed an abandonment of the

objection.

A magistrate judge’s recommendation cannot be appealed to a

Court of Appeals; only the district judge’s order or judgment can

be appealed.

2. Opposing party’s response to the objection. Any opposing

party may submit a brief opposing the objection within ten (10)

days of being served with a copy of the statement of objection.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; SD ALA LR 72.4(b). 

Case 1:04-cv-00744-BH-B Document 27 Filed 02/26/07 Page 7 of 8
3. Transcript (applicable where proceedings tape recorded).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the magistrate

judge finds that the tapes and original records in this action are

adequate for purposes of review. Any party planning to object to

this recommendation, but unable to pay the fee for a transcript, is

advised that a judicial determination that transcription is

necessary is required before the United States will pay the cost of

the transcript.

DONE this 26th day of February 2007.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-00744-BH-B Document 27 Filed 02/26/07 Page 8 of 8