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, )

Download PDF
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

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?