Price v. State of Alabama et al

Filing 10

ORDERED that: (1) The 9 Objections are OVERRULED; (2) The 7 Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED; (3) The plaintiff's federal claims are DISMISSED with prejudice as further set out; (4) The plaintiff's state law claims are DISMISSED wit hout prejudice as further set out; (5) The 6 Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is DENIED as MOOT; and (6) The plaintiff's 8 Motion to Amend Complaint is DENIED as MOOT. An appropriate judgment will be entered. Signed by Honorable William Keith Watkins on 12/24/2008. (cb, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR T H E MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION C H A R L E S A. PRICE, P l a in tif f , v. S T A T E OF ALABAMA, et al., D e f e n d a n ts . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C A S E NO. 2:08-CV-856-WKW [w o]

ORDER O n November 26, 2008, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation that the court d is m is s Plaintiff Charles A. Price's ("Mr. Price") complaint before service of process under 2 8 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).1 (Doc. # 7.) Mr. Price filed objections on December 9, 2008, re q u e stin g (1) that he be released from the conservatorship and guardianship which control h is person and estate and (2) that his conservator be ordered to allow him access to money f r o m his estate so that he can hire a lawyer to represent him in guardianship proceedings. (D o c . # 9.) H a v in g conducted an independent and de novo review of those portions of the R e c o m m e n d a tio n to which objection is made, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court finds

"[T]he court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal ­ (i) is frivolous or malicious, (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

1

th a t the objections simply restate the content of the complaint and that the Magistrate Judge h a s accurately and thoroughly addressed the reasons for the complaint's failure. F e d e ra l courts do not have jurisdiction under § 1983 to review the judgments of state c o u rts on appeal. Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); see also Johnson v. De G r a n d y , 512 U.S. 997, 1005-06 (1994) ("a party losing in state court is barred from seeking w h a t in substance would be appellate review of the state judgment in a United States District C o u rt, based on the losing party's claim that the state judgment itself violates the loser's f e d era l rights"). Mr. Price's complaint and objections are based upon state court decisions w h ic h this court does not have jurisdiction to review, and Mr. Price seeks damages from p a rtie s who are immune from suit. Additionally, Mr. Price fails to state any other federal c la im s . While Mr. Price may have viable state law claims, the court declines supplemental ju risd ictio n over any such claims in the absence of any surviving federal claims, pursuant to 2 8 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). See Mergens v. Dreyfoos, 166 F.3d 1114, 1119 (11th Cir. 1999) (d is m is s a l of state law claims pursuant to § 1367(c) is encouraged if federal claims dismissed p rio r to trial). Accordingly, any state law claims which may remain are due to be dismissed w ith o u t prejudice. A c c o rd in g ly, it is ORDERED that: 1. 2. M r. Price's objections (Doc. # 9) are OVERRULED. T h e Recommendation (Doc. # 7) is ADOPTED.

2

3.

M r. Price's federal claims are DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U .S .C . § 1915(e)(2)(B).

4.

M r. Price's state law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U .S .C . § 1367(c)(3).

5.

M r. Price's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Doc. # 6) is DENIED as M OO T.

6.

M r. Price's Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. # 8) is DENIED as MOOT.

A n appropriate judgment will be entered. D O N E this 24th day of December, 2008. /s/ W. Keith Watkins UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3