UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

JAMES JAMISON, Case No. 1:18-cv-419
Plaintiff,
Barrett, J.
vs. Litkovitz, M.J.
UNITED STATES FEDERAL REPORT AND
GOVERNMENT, et al., RECOMMENDATION
Defendants.

Plaintiff has filed a civil rights complaint and amended complaint in this Court pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1,7). On July 23, 2018, the undersigned issued a Report and
Recommendation that plaintiff's complaint, as amended, be dismissed for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. 9). Specifically, it was recommended that plaintiff's
claims that defendants—the United States Federal Government, Assistant United States Attorney
Jessica Knight, and U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions—violated his constitutional rights in
connection with the revocation of his supervised release be dismissed because his claims were
barred by sovereign and prosecutorial immunity. (See id.). On July 25, 201 8, plaintiff filed a
proposed second amended complaint, which the undersigned has recommended be denied. (See
Doe. 10, 11).

This matter is now before the Court on plaintiff's August 1, 2018 proposed amended
complaint. (Doc. 12). Plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint to include relief in the form of
immediate release. (See id. at PagelID 67, 70).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) governs amendments to the pleadings. A
complaint may be amended once as a matter of course within twenty-one days of service of
responsive pleadings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). Thereafter, a plaintiff may amend the

complaint either with consent of the Opposing party or leave of the court. Fed. R. Civ. P.


15(a)(2). “In deciding whether to grant a motion to amend, courts should consider undue delay
in filing, lack of notice to the opposing party, bad faith by the moving party, repeated failure to
cure deficiencies by previous amendments, undue prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of
amendment.” Brumbalough v. Camelot Care Ctrs., Inc., 427 F.3d 996, 1001 (6th Cir. 2005).
The test for futility is whether the amended complaint “could not withstand a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss.” Rose v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 203 F.3d 417, 421 (6th Cir. 2000).

In this case, plaintiff should be denied leave to file the amended complaint because the
proposed amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To the
extent plaintiff seeks relief in the form of an immediate or speedier release from imprisonment,
his sole federal remedy is a petition for writ of habeas corpus. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411
U.S. 475, 500 (1973). Plaintiff may not pursue habeas corpus relief through a civil rights action
under Section 1983.!

Accordingly, in sum, plaintiff should be denied leave to file a second amended
complaint because the proposed second amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

vac 8//3//2 Shun XL Leite

Karen L. Litkovitz ~ S
United States Magistrate Judge

' The proposed amended complaint otherwise repeats plaintiff's allegations that his constitutional rights were
violated in connection with the revocation of his supervised release. For the reasons stated in the Court’s prior
Report and Recommendations, plaintiff's allegations fail to state a claim for relief against the named defendants.
(See Doc. 9, 11).

2


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

JAMES JAMISON, Case No. 1:18-cv-419
Plaintiff,
Barrett, J.
vs. Litkovitz, M.J.

UNITED STATES FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, et al.,
Defendants.

NOTICE

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written
objections to this Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after
being served with a copy thereof. That period may be extended further by the Court on timely
motion by either side for an extension of time. All objections shall specify the portion(s) of the
R&R objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the
objections. A party shall respond to an opponent’s objections within FOURTEEN DAYS after
being served with a copy of those objections. Failure to make objections in accordance with this
procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States

v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).