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, )

Download PDF
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 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 searches, and cases and statutes located at,, and 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

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?