Stepp v. King (INMATE2)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that this case be DISMISSED with prejudice prior to service of process in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(i); Objections to R&R due by 5/18/2009. Signed by Honorable Wallace Capel, Jr on 5/5/2009. (cc, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION ____________________________ M IC H A E L STEPP, P l a in tif f , v. * * * 2:09-CV-383-WHA (WO)
A L A B A M A ATTORNEY GENERAL, * T R O Y KING * D e f e n d a n t. ____________________________ R E C O M M E N D A T I O N OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE M ic h a el Stepp is an inmate incarcerated at the Jefferson County Jail. He files this 42 U .S .C . § 1983 action against Alabama Attorney General Troy King challenging the constitutionality of matters associated with the Alabama Community Notification Act, Ala. Code 1975 § 15-20-20 et seq. (1975, as amended), and its application to him as a sex offender. In f ilin g this action, Plaintiff requests preliminary injunctive relief "and any other relief." (Doc. N o . 1.) I . DISCUSSION U n d e r 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), a court is authorized to allow indigent litigants to proceed in forma pauperis without paying administrative costs of proceeding with a civil or criminal a c tio n , or appeal therein. The statute, however, protects against abuses of this privilege by a llo w in g a district court to dismiss a case "at any time if the court determines that . . . the a c t i o n or appeal . . . is frivolous or malicious." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Similarly,
u n d er 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, courts are required, before docketing (or as soon as practicable), to "screen" the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Upon this screening, "the court shall . . . d i sm is s the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint . . . is frivolous, m aliciou s, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). A complaint permitted to proceed in forma pauperis which merely "repeats pending o r previously litigated claims may be considered abusive and dismissed under the authority o f section 1915[e]" as "malicious." Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5 th Cir. 1988) (c itatio n s omitted); see also Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9 th Cir. 1995). " A litigant whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a paying litig a n t, lacks an economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive la w s u its ." Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U .S . 319, 324 (1989)). In determining whether a dismissal is warranted, there is no specific test to follow. R a th e r, courts are "vested with especially broad discretion." Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1 1 1 6 , 1119 (5 th Cir. 1986). Courts generally look to the identity of the parties, the legal and f a c tu a l claims, and the relief sought to determine if the complaint is repetitive or malicious. See Bailey, 846 F.2d at 1021. The complaint filed in this case is virtually indistinguishable from a complaint re c en tly filed by Plaintiff with the United States District Court for the Northern District of A laba m a . See Stepp v. Reach, et al., Civil Action No. 2:09-CV-569-IPJ (N. D. Ala.); see
a ls o Stepp v. Reach, Civil Action No. 2:08-CV-HGD (N.D. Ala. 2008).1 The court has c o n sid e re d each aspect of Plaintiff's litigation and determines that his complaint is repetitive. It merely repeats the same claims against the same defendant as presented to the United S ta te s District Court for the Northern District of Alabama in Stepp v. Reach, et al., 2:09-CV5 6 9 -IP J (N.D. Ala.), which is presently pending on Plaintiff's claims for relief. In light of th e foregoing, it is clear that the complaint filed by Plaintiff in the present cause of action is m a lic io u s and it is, therefore, subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). See g e n e r a lly Curtis v. Citibank, N.A, 226 F.3d 133, 138 (2 n d Cir. 2000) ("as part of its general p o w e r to administer its docket, a district court may stay or dismiss a suit that is duplicative o f another federal court suit"). I I . CONCLUSION A c c o r d in g ly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case b e DISMISSED with prejudice prior to service of process in accordance with the provisions o f 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(i). It is further O R D E R E D that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said R e c o m m e n d a tio n on or before May 18, 2009. Any objections filed must specifically identify th e findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party objects. Frivolous, co n clus ive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are
Available at https://pacer.uspci.uscourts.gov.
a d v is e d that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not a p p e a la b le . F a ilu re to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the M a g i s tr a t e Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District C o u rt of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual f in d in g s in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain e rr o r or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5 th Cir. 1982). See Stein v . Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of P r ic h a r d , 661 F.2d 1206 (11 th Cir. 1981) ( en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the d e c is io n s of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on S e p te m b e r 30, 1981. D o n e this 5th day of May, 2009.
/ s / Wallace Capel, Jr. W A L L A C E CAPEL, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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?