Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

JAMES HARMON, III,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00189-MP-AK

MARTHA HUMPHRIES,

Respondent.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Report and Recommendation regarding the Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by James Harmon III, Doc. 1, the corresponding Motion for

Preliminary Injunction, Doc. 2, and Motion to Amend, Doc. 8. The Magistrate Judge has

recommended the Petition be denied and the case dismissed as frivolous, on the grounds that

Petitioner is misusing the writ of habeas corpus to challenge collaterally the decision of the

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit’s order in a civil rights case. See

Harmon v. Webster, Case No. 07-13125 (11th Cir. 2008) (unpublished). Petitioner has timely

objected to the Report and Recommendation, Doc. 11, on the grounds that the order of the

Eleventh Circuit wrongfully deprived him of the liberty to seek redress of grievances guaranteed

by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Objected-to findings in a Report and

Recommendation are reviewed de novo. 

Petitioner describes losing his civil rights appeal at the Eleventh Circuit as being

deprived of a right without due process of law. His argument is unpersuasive because pursuit of

vindication in the Courts of the United States, up to and including the United States Court of
Page 2 of 3

Case No: 1:09-cv-00189-MP-AK

Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, represents extremely extensive process. No more is due. The

ruling of the Eleventh Circuit denying Mr. Harmon relief on his civil rights claim is not a

“taking” within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment, and Mr. Harmon fails to cite to a single

authority that suggests it can be. 

Petitioner wishes to amend his petition to name individually the judges of the Eleventh

Circuit panel that ruled against him as individual respondents. He may not do so. Such a

lawsuit, as against them, is barred by absolute judicial immunity. 

Petitioner wishes for a preliminary injunction staying enforcement of the Eleventh

Circuit’s order. This court has no jurisdiction to entertain such a request.. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the writ of habeas corpus extends, inter alia, to prisoners

who are in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. It is

clear that Petitioner’s claims are not in any way cognizable under § 2241, as they challenge

instead an order in a civil case, nor is there any other jurisdictional basis for this Court to

entertain Petitioner’s claims of wrongdoing by the judges of the Eleventh Circuit. Petitioner’s

attempt to challenge the Eleventh Circuit’s decision by way of a habeas corpus petition is

patently frivolous. 

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, Doc. 10, is ADOPTED

and incorporated herein. 

2. Petitioner’s motion for a preliminary injunction, Doc. 2, is DENIED. 

3. Petitioner’s motion to amend, Doc. 8, is DENIED. 

4. The Petition, Doc. 1, is DENIED, and this case is DISMISSED as frivolous. 
Page 3 of 3

Case No: 1:09-cv-00189-MP-AK

5. Petitioner is warned that, since he has accumulated at least three strikes pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the Court may punish the filing of frivolous habeas

corpus petitions with monetary sanctions. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of January, 2010

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge