Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_14-cv-01233/USCOURTS-almd-3_14-cv-01233-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

WOODBURCK NOE, #148475, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-1233-WKW

) [WO]

)

ALABAMA SUPREME COURT, )

)

Respondent. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

This case is before the court on a Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed by

Woodburck Noe [“Noe”], an indigent state inmate and frequent litigant before this court,

directed to compel action by the Alabama Supreme Court. In this petition, Noe requests

1

an order from this court directing the state courts to reverse adverse actions taken in a civil

Although the general writ of mandamus was abolished by Rule 81(b), Federal Rules of Civil 1

Procedure, federal courts “may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions

and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). Actions in the nature of mandamus

are allowed by 28 U.S.C. § 1361, which states that: “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of

any civil action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any

agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” '\While the law is well settled that federal district

courts have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature 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, federal courts are

without jurisdiction to issue writs compelling action by state courts and/or state officials in the performance

of their duties where mandamus is the relief sought. Moye v. Clerk, DeKalb County Superior Court, 474

F.2d 1275, 1276 (5 Cir. 1973); Russell v. Knight, 488 F.2d 96, 97 (5 Cir. 1973); Davis v. Lansing, 851 F.2d th th

72, 74 (2 Cir. 1988); Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4 Cir. 1969). nd th

Thus, this court has no mandamus jurisdiction over state officials or state courts and, hence, regardless of

Noe’s in forma pauperis status, lacks authority to compel the action Noe requests. 

Case 3:14-cv-01233-WKW-CSC Document 3 Filed 02/09/15 Page 1 of 5
action he sought to file in the Circuit Court of Pike County, Alabama.

II. DISCUSSION

Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), the filing fee applicable to this civil

action is $350.00. Upon initiation of this case, Noe filed a request for leave to proceed

without prepayment of fees or costs pursuant to the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Doc.

No. 2 - Request and Affidavit forIn Forma Pauperis Status. However, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

directs that a prisoner is not allowed to bring a civil action in forma pauperis and requires

payment of the requisite filing fee upon initiation of the suit if the inmate “has, on 3 or

more occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal

in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous,

malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner

is under imminent danger of serious danger of serious physical injury.”

2

The records of this court establish that Noe, while incarcerated, has on at leastseven

occasions had civil actions dismissed as frivolous, malicious, for failure to state a claim

and/or for asserting claims against defendants who were immune from suit pursuant to the

In Rivera v. Allin, 144 F.3d 719, 731, cert. denied, 524 U.S. 978, 119 S.Ct. 27 (1998), the Court

2

determined that the “three strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which requires frequent filer prisoner

indigents to prepay the entire filing fee before federal courts may consider their cases and appeals, “does not

violate the First Amendment right to access the courts; the separation of judicial and legislative powers; the

Fifth Amendment right to due process of law; or the Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection, as

incorporated through the Fifth Amendment.” In Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 127 S.Ct. 910, 921 (2007), the

Supreme Court abrogated Rivera but only to the extent it compelled an inmate to plead exhaustion of

remedies in his complaint as “failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense under the PLRA ... and inmates are

not required to specifically plead or demonstrate exhaustion in their complaints.” 549 U.S. at 216, 127 S.Ct.

at 921. 

2

Case 3:14-cv-01233-WKW-CSC Document 3 Filed 02/09/15 Page 2 of 5
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The cases on which the court relies in finding a violation

of the directives of § 1915(g) by Noe are as follows: (1) Noe v. McGraw, Civil Action No.

2:95-CV-1195-MHT (M. D. Ala. 1995), (2) Noe v. James, Civil Action No. 2:94-CV-928-

MHT (M.D. Ala. 1994), (3) Noe v. Hunt, et al., Civil Action No. 2:94-CV-86-WHA (M.D.

Ala. 1994), (4) Noe v. Boyd, et al., Civil Action No. 2:92-CV-1350-WHA (M.D. Ala.

1992), (5) Noe v. Hunt, et al., Civil Action No. 2:92-CV-977-ID (M.D. Ala. 1992), (6) Noe

v. Hunt, et al., Civil Action No. 2:92-CV-711-TMH (M.D. Ala. 1992), and (7) Noe v. Hunt,

et al., Civil Action No. 2:92-CV-565-TMH (M.D. Ala. 1992).

3

In the instant civil action, Noe complains that the state courts refused to grant him

relief with respect to documents submitted to the Pike County Circuit Court in which he

sought either reconsideration of hisstatus as an adult offender orrelease fromincarceration

and denied various motions for reconsideration challenging the denial of such relief.

Petition for Writ of Mandamus - Doc. No. 1 at 1. The allegations made the basis of the

instant complaint fail to demonstrate that Noe was “under imminent danger of serious

physical injury” at the time he filed this complaint as is required to meet the imminent

danger exception to the application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d

1189, 1193 (11 Cir. 1999) (a prisoner who has filed three or more frivolous lawsuits and

th

seeks to proceed in forma pauperis must allege a present imminent danger to circumvent

The requisite dismissals are indicated on the docket sheets maintained by this court in the referenced

3

cases.

3

Case 3:14-cv-01233-WKW-CSC Document 3 Filed 02/09/15 Page 3 of 5
application of the “three strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)). Any potential safety

concerns attendant to confinement in the prison system are purely speculative and do not

constitute the requisite imminent danger.

Based on the foregoing, the court concludes that Noe’s motion for leave to proceed

in forma pauperis is due to be denied and this case dismissed without prejudice as Noe

failed to pay the requisite filing fee upon the initiation of this cause of action. Dupree v.

Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11 Cir. 2002)(emphasis in original) (“[T]he proper

th

procedure isfor the district court to dismissthe complaint without prejudice when it denies

the prisoner leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to the provisions of § 1915(g)”

because the prisoner “must pay the filing fee at the time he initiates the suit.”). 

III. CONCLUSION

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

1. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by Woodburck Noe on

December 18, 2014 (Doc. No. 2) be DENIED.

2. This case be dismissed without prejudice for the plaintiff’s failure to pay the full

filing fee upon the initiation of this case.

It is further

ORDERED that on or before February 23, 2015, the parties may file objections

to this Recommendation. Any objectionsfiled mustspecifically identify the findingsin the

Magistrate Judge’sRecommendation to which the partyis objecting. Frivolous, conclusive

4

Case 3:14-cv-01233-WKW-CSC Document 3 Filed 02/09/15 Page 4 of 5
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

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

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

attacking on appeal the factual findings contained 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 (5 Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc.,

th

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

th th

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 9 day of February, 2015.

th

/s/Charles S. Coody

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5

Case 3:14-cv-01233-WKW-CSC Document 3 Filed 02/09/15 Page 5 of 5