Bowhall v. NAACP Beverly Hills et al

Filing 9

ORDER overruling 5 6 7 8 Objections; denying the 5 and 7 Motions for additional time; adopting the 4 Recommendation; granting the 2 motion to proceed IFP; dismissing the claims against Defendants without prejudice prior to service of process pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). Signed by Honorable William Keith Watkins on 11/18/2010. (br, )

Bowhall v. NAACP Beverly Hills et al (MAG+)

Doc. 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION W IL L IA M E. BOWHALL, P la in tif f , v. N A A C P BEVERLY HILLS, et al., D e f e n d a n ts. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CASE NO. 2:10-CV-679-WKW [WO]

ORDER O n November 5, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation in th is case.1 (Doc. # 4.) In the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff William E. Bowhall was g iv e n a deadline of November 19, 2010, to file objections to the Magistrate Judge's findings. (Doc. # 4, at 8.) On November 8, 2010, Mr. Bowhall filed a Request to Procede [sic] In ProS e , which after review, the court construes as an objection. (Doc. # 5.) Unsatisfied with his f irs t bite of the objection apple, Mr. Bowhall also filed a Challenge / Motion of Objection ( D o c . # 6), Motion for Extension of Time (Pro Se) (Doc. # 7), and Motion to Continue in P ro -S e (Doc. # 8) on November 17, 2010. The court construes each of these filings as both a motion for extension of time and further objections in his nine cases. The court has

Mr. Bowhall has filed eight other civil actions in this court. See Bowhall v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 2:10cv601-WKW (July 14, 2010); Bowhall v. Capitol-EMI Records, Inc., 2:10cv603WKW (July 14, 2010); Bowhall v. Office of James M. Deimen, No. 2:10cv604-WKW (July 14, 2010); Bowhall v. Howell High Sch. Bd. of Educ., No. 2:10cv605-WKW (July 14, 2010); Bowhall v. Viacom, Inc., 2:10cv606-WKW (July 14, 2010); Bowhall v. Dep't of Defense, No. 2:10cv607-WKW (July 14, 2010); Bowhall v. NBC, Inc., 2:10cv608-WKW (July 14, 2010); Bowhall v. Obama, No. 2:10cv609WKW (July 14, 2010).

1

Dockets.Justia.com

conducted a de novo review of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which o b je c tio n is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). For the following reasons, Mr. Bowhall's m o tio n s for extension of time and objections are due to be overruled. In his ninth, and final, complaint, Mr. Bowhall casts a cacophony of conclusory c o n s p ira c y claims toward sixteen different political organizations. (Compl.) Mr. Bowhall a ll e g e s that Defendants entered into multiple conspiracies involving fraud and deceit, n e g lig e n t misrepresentation, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, c o n s titu tio n a l violations, civil rights violations, and abuse of office. (Compl. 4-12.) The o n ly specific factual allegations underpinning these claims involve events that occurred in 1 9 9 6 and 1997. (Compl. 3-10.) The Magistrate Judge appropriately found that Mr.

B o w h a ll's state and federal claims were barred by the statute of limitations. (Doc. # 4, at 6-7.) This court is obligated to provide Mr. Bowhall a de novo review "of those findings o b je c te d to." Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 409 (11th Cir. 1982). Mr. Bowhall o b je c ts on the grounds that he is unable to research the law relied upon by the Magistrate J u d g e . (Doc. # 5, at 1-3.) In his supplemental objections, Mr. Bowhall further argues that th e law relied on by the Magistrate Judge is "unobtainable for review by the Plaintiff," citing h is own Yahoo! searches to prove their unavailability. (Doc. # 6, Ex. A, at 1-2; Doc. # 8, at 1 ; Doc. # 8, Ex. A, at 1-2.) Mr. Bowhall's arguments about his inability to research the law d o nothing to toll the statute of limitations. See, e.g., Wakefield v. R.R. Ret. Bd., 131 F.3d

2

967, 969-70 (11th Cir. 1997) (explaining that pro se status and ignorance of law are not f a c to rs that usually support the rarely employed relief of equitable tolling of the statute of lim ita tio n s ) . Further, in his twenty-six page exhibit to his Challenge / Motion of Objection (Doc. # 6, Ex. A) and Motion to Continue in Pro-Se (Doc. # 8, Ex. A)2 , Mr. Bowhall provides p rin to u ts of a compilation of federal statutes, state statutes, and a portion of a Supreme Court c a s e for support of his motion for an extension of time and objections "as outlined in P la in tif f s [sic] Cause of Action files (9) Total, submitted to the Clerks [sic] office on, or after 7 /1 4 /2 0 1 0 ." (Doc. # 6, at 2.) Mr. Bowhall's "law compilation" does nothing to bolster his o b je c tio n s in this case. Beyond his ignorance of the law and inability to research it, Mr. B o w h a ll provides no legal argument or reasoning to show that his "law compilation" s u p p o rts his objections in this case. Though courts do show "a leniency to pro se litigants n o t enjoyed by those with the benefit of a legal education," courts do not have "license to s e rv e as de facto counsel for a party." GJR Investments, Inc. v. Cnty. of Escambia, Fla., 132 F .3 d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998) (overruled on other grounds). This court has been more th a n lenient in construing Mr. Bowhall's filings as objections, and reviewing the merit of his s h o tg u n conclusions. However, the court will not act as Mr. Bowhall's lawyer. To act o th e rw is e would require this court to gather facts not pled by Mr. Bowhall, draw up
2

Review of both Exhibits A (Docs. # 6 & 8) show that they are identical compilations of internet printouts of www.yahoo.com searches, and cases and statutes located at http://findlaw.com, www.law.cornell.edu, and http://supreme.justia.com with Mr. Bowhall's written conclusions and references in the margin. 3

arguments not made by Mr. Bowhall, then divine how his "law compilation" supports his o b je c tio n to the Magistrate Judge in all nine of his cases.3 All Mr. Bowhall has provided the c o u rt is a print-out of a statute or a case and then written in the margin, "[t]he Magistrates re f . may be a [sic] mis-given [sic] and should be considered inappropriate," (Docs. # 6 & 8, E x . A, at 1), "Irrelavant [sic] and mis-leading [sic] court citations of which this Plaintiff c a n n o t obtain for factual accounts," (Docs. # 6 & 8, Ex. A, at 5), or simply "Reference To [ o r] See : [one or all of Mr. Bowhall's nine cases]." (Docs. # 6 & 8, Ex. A, at 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 1 3 -1 8 , 23.) Simply copying various code books and reporters, scribbling a conclusion in the m a rg in , and mailing the judge for a favorable ruling does not a legitimate objection make. In addition, Mr. Bowhall draws the conclusion that the federal and state statute of lim ita tio n s , and current anti-trust legislation enacted by Congress are "subjecting the United S ta te s to improper and undue economic hardships, and national security" and are " s p e culative and conspiratory [sic] in nature, to deprive Constitutional Rights to Due Process, a n d civil resolve . . . ." (Doc. # 6, at 1.) The court will not consider these arguments on the g ro u n d s that they are conclusory, unsupported by citation to supporting law, and frivolous. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-328 (1989) (upholding 28 U.S.C. § 1915 d is m is s a l for claims based on "clearly baseless" factual contentions, infringement of "a legal in te re s t which clearly does not exist," or an indisputably "meritless legal theory"). Mr. B o w h a ll's "fantastic and delusional scenarios" discussed in this case and others are exactly The court notes that the Magistrate Judge has not issued a Report and Recommendation in Bowhall v. Obama, 2:10cv609-WKW (July 14, 2010). 4
3

the class of claims the Supreme Court found ripe for sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Id. Finally, Mr. Bowhall does not raise any other specific contentions with the Magistrate J u d g e 's Report and Recommendation in this case. Rather, he merely aggregates and cites h is previous objections in his other cases as applicable in this case. (Docs. # 5-8.) In re v ie w in g these objections, the court finds that the statutes cited by Mr. Bowhall concerning c o p yrig h ts , patents, anti-trust claims, commercial space launches, pirated vessels, and c o m m e rc ia l aviation do nothing to toll the statute of limitations in this case. (Doc. # 5, at 26 .) Nor does Mr. Bowhall show how his citations to cases concerning discrimination and " is su e s of unconstitutional law," or his claim of "all rights under U.S. Code to obtain . . . his [ c ]o n stitu tio n a l rights" form a coherent objection to the Magistrate Judge's Report and R e c o m m e n d a tio n . (Doc. # 5, at 7-8.) Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge's Report and

R e c o m m e n d a tio n is due to be adopted and Mr. Bowhall's objection is due to be overruled. A c c o rd in g ly, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. 2. P la in tif f 's objections (Docs. # 5, 6, 7, 8) are OVERRULED. Plaintiff's motions for additional time to object to the Magistrate Judge's R e p o rt and Recommendation (Doc. # 5, at 7; Doc. # 7) are DENIED. 3. T h e Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 4) is A DO PTED . 4. P la in tif f 's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. # 2) is GRANTED.

5

5.

Plaintiff's claims against Defendants are DISMISSED without prejudice prior to service of process pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). a p p ro p ria te final judgment will be entered. An

D O N E this 18th day of November, 2010. /s/ W. Keith Watkins UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6