Nails v. Houston County Circuit Clerk Office

Filing 3

OPINION. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 10/26/07. (djy, )

Download PDF
Nails v. Houston County Circuit Clerk Office Doc. 3 Case 1:07-cv-00959-MHT-SRW Document 3 Filed 10/26/2007 Page 1 of 4 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, SOUTHERN DIVISION ANGELA DENISE NAILS, Plaintiff, v. HOUSTON COUNTY CIRCUIT CLERK OFFICE, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. ) 1:07cv959-MHT ) (WO) ) ) ) OPINION The court now has before it the motion to proceed in forma pauperis filed by plaintiff Angela Denise Nails, who is a frequent litigant in the Middle District of Alabama. It is well established that a two-step procedure should be followed in processing a complaint filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915. "First, the district court should determine whether the plaintiff satisfies the economic eligibility criterion Upon a under 28 of U.S.C. economic 1915(a)[(1)]. finding Case 1:07-cv-00959-MHT-SRW Document 3 Filed 10/26/2007 Page 2 of 4 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 provision Second, allows once the leave has been granted, dismiss this the district court to complaint prior to service of process if it determines the complaint "is frivolous or malicious," "fails to 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 1:07-cv-00959-MHT-SRW Document 3 Filed 10/26/2007 Page 3 of 4 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). satisfies the economic The motion filed by Nails eligibility criteria of 1915(a)(1). Accordingly, the complaint may be filed without prepayment of fees. The court is, however, of the view that Nails's complaint should be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). It is apparent that she is requesting that this court review the actions of state courts. However, the state appellate courts, the Alabama Supreme Court, and ultimately the United States Supreme Court, not a federal district court, are the only bodies that can correct any error of law that may have been made by a state trial court. See District of Columbia Court 3 Case 1:07-cv-00959-MHT-SRW Document 3 Filed 10/26/2007 Page 4 of 4 of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149 (1923). Nails's complaint therefore should be dismissed before service on the defendant 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 v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346 (11th Cir. 2001). An appropriate judgment will be entered. DONE, this the 26th day of October, 2007. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?