Kinsey et al v. Watkins et al (MAG+) (LEAD)

Filing 26

ORDER denying 22 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 10/24/2012. (wcl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
C.H. KINSEY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
WILLIAM KEITH WATKINS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 2:11-cv-165-MEF
(WO – Do not publish)

**************************************************************************
)
C.H. KINSEY, et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
CASE NO. 2:11-cv-314-MEF
v.
)
)
WILLIAM KEITH WATKINS, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
ORDER
Proceeding pro se, Plaintiffs-Appellants C.H. Kinsey and Janie L. Kinsey filed two
separate complaints against U.S. District Court Judge William Keith Watkins, Debra B.
Hackett, Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, and the “U.S.
Marshals.” These complaints were consolidated for all purposes pursuant to Rule 42(a) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
On April 26, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued an Amended Report and
Recommendation (Doc. #11) to which no timely objections were made. Accordingly, and
following an independent review of the record, the Court entered an Order adopting the

Magistrate Judge’s Amended Report and Recommendation and dismissing the Kinseys’
complaints with prejudice. (Doc. #12). The Kinseys then appealed to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. (Doc. #14).
On March 12, 2012, the Eleventh Circuit issued a per curiam opinion, affirming this
Court’s dismissal of the Kinseys’ claims against the defendants. (Doc. #20). Specifically,
the Eleventh Circuit found that Judge Watkins enjoyed “absolute immunity” from the
Kinseys’ claims, as they stemmed from actions he took in his judicial capacity. (Doc. #20).
With respect to the remaining defendants, Debra Hackett and the “U.S. Marshals,” the
Eleventh Circuit held that “the Kinseys’ complaints failed to allege facts sufficient to state
a claim against either the Clerk of the ‘U.S. Marshals.’” (Doc. #20.) Notably, the Eleventh
Circuit’s opinion does not award, or even address the propriety of awarding, any money
damages the Kinseys. (Doc. #20.) Nor does the judgment entered by the Eleventh Circuit
on May 5, 2012 (Doc. #21), which adopted the March 12, 2012 per curiam opinion as the
judgment of the Court, make any such reference or award.
The Kinseys have now brought this cause before the Court on their Motion for
Miscellaneous Relief (Doc. #22), which was filed on June 11, 2012. In this Motion, the
Kinseys request that this Court provide them with “advice seeking of sum of money paid in
whole or annuity a sum of money paid at a regular intervals after a judgment has been enter
[sic] in this by the 11 Cir issue as Issuance Mandate of the 11th Cir.” (Doc. #22). This
appears to be a request by the Kinseys for the Court to provide them with legal advice or
instruction as to how to obtain money payments – a request to which they apparently believe
2

they are entitled based on the Eleventh Circuit’s judgment. However, as an initial matter,
this Court cannot provide litigants, including the Kinseys, with legal advice or instruction.
Furthermore, the Kinseys have not been awarded a judgment or any money damages in this
case. Thus, even if this Court were to entertain the Kinseys’ request, there is simply no
“advice” for the Court to give in this regard.
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that the Kinseys’ Motion for
Miscellaneous Relief (Doc. #22) is DENIED.
DONE this the 24th day of October, 2012.

/s/ Mark E. Fuller
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3