Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-01080/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-01080-0/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 1

court determines that . . . 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

ANDREW JODDIE WILLIAMS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:05cv1080-MEF-DRB

)

NIX HOLTSFORD GILLILAND )

HIGGINS & HITSON, PC, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This action is presently before the court on plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis (Doc. 2), filed November 9, 2005. Upon consideration of the motion, it is hereby

 ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. 

However, upon review of the complaint filed in this case (Doc. 1), the court concludes

that dismissal of the complaint prior to service of process is appropriate under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff appears to be seeking review of an automobile accident case for 1

which the Alabama Supreme Court denied certiorari on the grounds that his appeal was

untimely filed. He has attached to his complaint documentation from state court proceedings

involving this case, including a copy of the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals order affirming

the decision of the Montgomery Circuit Court and a certificate of judgment from the

Case 2:05-cv-01080-MEF-DRB Document 4 Filed 11/18/05 Page 1 of 3
2

Alabama Supreme Court denying plaintiff’s petition for writ of certiorari. In the present case,

plaintiff seeks “to appeal a decision from the Alabama State Supreme Cou[r]t dated

September 3, 2004.” (See Doc. 1-2, Attachment to Complaint.)

Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider claims

that are “inextricably intertwined” with a state court judgment. Dale v. Moore, 121 F.3d 624

(11th Cir. 1997). “The essence of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is that ‘a United States

District Court has no authority to review final judgments of a state court in judicial

proceedings.’” Narey v. Dean, 32 F.3d 1521, 1524 (11th Cir. 1994) (quoting District of

Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983)). This court lacks jurisdiction

to review the certificate of judgment entered by the Alabama Supreme Court in this case, as

well as the decisions rendered by the lower Alabama courts.

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this

action be DISMISSED prior to service of process pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

for lack of jurisdiction.

It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff file any objections to this Recommendation not

later than December 5, 2005. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in

the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the party is objecting. Frivolous,

conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are

advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not

appealable.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and advisements in the

Case 2:05-cv-01080-MEF-DRB Document 4 Filed 11/18/05 Page 2 of 3
3

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

District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from

attacking on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the

District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v.

Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d

33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en

banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed

down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. 

DONE this 18 day of November, 2005. th

/s/ Delores R. Boyd

DELORES BOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01080-MEF-DRB Document 4 Filed 11/18/05 Page 3 of 3