Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00508/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00508-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Thomas Head
Defendant
Sammie A. Smith
Plaintiff
Terri Willingham Thomas
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

SAMMIE A. SMITH, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

5. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.

) 2:09cv508-MHT

THOMAS HEAD, CIRCUIT JUDGE, ) (WO)

PIKE COUNTY, ALABAMA; and )

TERRI WILLINGHAM THOMAS, ) 

JUDGE, STATE OF ALABAMA )

COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION

The court now has before it the motion to proceed in

forma pauperis filed by plaintiff Sammie A. Smith. Smith

brings this action against two defendants: Judge Thomas

Head, of the Circuit Court of Pike County, Alabama, and

Judge Terri Willingham Thomas, of the State of Alabama

Court of Civil Appeals.

 Courts must follow a two-step procedure in processing

a complaint filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. "First,

the district court should determine whether the plaintiff

Case 2:09-cv-00508-MHT-TFM Document 3 Filed 06/04/09 Page 1 of 4
satisfies the economic eligibility criterion under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a). Upon a finding of economic

justification, the court should allow the complaint to be

docketed without prepayment of fees."1

 Woodall v. Foti,

648 F.2d 268, 271 (5th Cir. June 1981) (per curiam); see

also Procup v. Strickland, 760 F.2d 1107, 1114 (11th Cir.

1985).2

 Second, once leave has been granted, the district

court may dismiss the complaint prior to service of

1. Section 1915(a)(1) provides:

"Subject to subsection (b), any court of

the United States may authorize the

commencement, prosecution or defense of

any suit, action or proceeding, civil or

criminal, or appeal therein, without

prepayment of fees or security therefor,

by a person who submits an affidavit

that includes a statement of all assets

such prisoner possesses that the person

is unable to pay such fees or give

security therefor. Such affidavit shall

state the nature of the action, defense

or appeal and affiant's belief that the

person is entitled to redress."

2. In Bonner v. Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th

Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit Court of

Appeals adopted as binding precedent all of the decisions

of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the

close of business on September 30, 1981. 

2

Case 2:09-cv-00508-MHT-TFM Document 3 Filed 06/04/09 Page 2 of 4
process if it determines the complaint "is frivolous or

malicious," "fails to state a claim on which relief may

be granted," or "seeks monetary relief against a

defendant who is immune from such relief," 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii), and thus the court may

"spare the defendant the inconvenience and expense of

answering a frivolous complaint." Woodall, 648 F.2d at

271; see also Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346 (11th Cir.

2001). 

The motion filed by Smith satisfies the economic

eligibility criteria of § 1915(a)(1). Accordingly, the

complaint may be filed without prepayment of fees.

However, Smith’s complaint should be dismissed

without prejudice pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).

A suit will be dismissed as frivolous under § 1915 if the

claim is “without arguable merit” or if “the plaintiff’s

realistic chances of ultimate success are slight.” Sun

v. Forrester, 939 F.2d 924, 925 (11th Cir. 1991)

(internal citations omitted). Here, Smith has sued two

3

Case 2:09-cv-00508-MHT-TFM Document 3 Filed 06/04/09 Page 3 of 4
state judges for acts performed while acting in their

judicial capacities. It is well-established that judges

are absolutely immune from suit in performing their

judicial responsibilities. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9

(1991) (per curiam); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349,

356-57 (1978); see also Sun v. Forrester, 939 F.2d 924,

925 (11th Cir. 1991) (citing Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S.

24, 27-29 (1980)). Accordingly, Smith’s claims have no

arguable merit. 

Smith’s complaint therefore should be dismissed

before service on the defendants pursuant to

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). See Neitzke v. Williams, 490

U.S. 319 (1989); Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992);

see also Bilal, 251 F.3d 1346.

An appropriate judgment will be entered.

DONE, this the 4th day of June, 2009.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-00508-MHT-TFM Document 3 Filed 06/04/09 Page 4 of 4