Riethmiller v. Electors for the State of Alabama (MAG+)
ORDER as follows: Plaintiff's objection to the Order referring this action to the Magistrate Judge is OVERRULED; the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to docket Plaintiff's "simplified" petition, including its appendices (Doc 5 , at 4-50), as an amendment to the complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (see Doc. 5 , at 20, and 25, heading of Appendix D) is DENIED; that Plaintiff's Ob jections to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are OVERRULED, and that the 4 Recommendation is ADOPTED as further set out; that this action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); An appropriate judgment will be entered. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 10/18/2012. (jg, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
ELECTORS FOR THE STATE OF
) CASE NO. 2:12-CV-823-WKW
Before the court are the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 4)
and the Objections to the Recommendation filed by pro se litigant Annamarie
Riethmiller (Doc. # 5). Plaintiff also objects to the order of this court referring this
action to the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 3), contending that “[i]t is obvious from the
order of Magistrate Judge Walker, that the matter was too complex for her to
understand.” (Doc. # 5 ¶ 1.) Plaintiff has attached a “simplified Petition” to assist
this court. (Doc. # 5, at 4–50.) She includes within this petition a motion for
appointment of counsel. Upon careful consideration of the record, it is ORDERED
Plaintiff’s objection to the Order referring this action to the Magistrate
Judge is OVERRULED;
the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to docket Plaintiff’s “simplified”
petition, including its appendices (Doc. # 5, at 4–50), as an amendment to the
complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure1; and
Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (see Doc. # 5, at 20, ¶ 71,
and 25, heading of Appendix D) is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s Objections to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are
without merit. The Magistrate Judge entered her Recommendation, however, on the
basis of Plaintiff’s original allegations. Because those allegations have now been
supplemented, the Recommendation pertains only to the original complaint. The
court has considered the allegations of Plaintiff’s complaint, as amended, to
determine whether they overcome the jurisdictional deficiency identified by the
Magistrate Judge. They do not. While Plaintiff claims to have suffered injury
personally, in addition to the injury allegedly suffered by the 650 other petitioners,
she still fails to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate the constitutional requirement
of standing. Even assuming that Plaintiff alleges an “injury in fact” sufficient to
Plaintiff seeks to have this court consider her “simplified” petition along with the “previous
filing.” (See Doc. # 5, at 18, ¶ 66 (“Through the previous filing, this filing and the attachments the
antagonistic interests described are all before the court by proper process or representation.”).)
satisfy the first prong of the standing inquiry, her allegations – accepted as true and
viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff – do not establish the remaining
elements of standing, i.e., that her injury is “fairly traceable to the defendant’s
allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” Allen
v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984).
Accordingly, upon an independent and de novo review of those portions of the
Recommendation to which objection is made, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objections to the Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge are OVERRULED, and that the Recommendation is ADOPTED as to the
claims presented by Plaintiff’s original complaint.
Additionally, because Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that she has standing
to pursue the claims she asserts in her complaint as amended, Plaintiff’s complaint
is legally frivolous and fails to state any claim over which this court is empowered to
grant relief. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
An appropriate judgment will be entered.
DONE this 18th day of October, 2012.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?