Johns v. Alabama Department of Human Resources (MAG+)

Filing 46

OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 9/26/2017. (kh, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
CHARLES KELVIN JOHNS,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF
HUMAN RESOURCES,
Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:16cv447-MHT
(WO)

OPINION
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff, a state
inmate, filed this lawsuit complaining that the Alabama
Department of Human Resources denied him due process
when

it

failed

to

provide

him

notice

of

a

legal

proceeding that resulted in the freezing of his assets
in an effort to collect past-due child support.

He

also seeks to amend to add various claims and seeks
production of various documents.

This lawsuit is now

before the court on the recommendation of the United
States
dismiss

Magistrate
be

Judge

granted,

that

defendant’s

plaintiff’s

motion

to

motion

to

amend

be

denied, plaintiff’s motion to produce be denied with
one minor exception, and this case be dismissed with
prejudice.

Also

before

the

court

are

plaintiff’s

objections to the recommendation.
After

an

independent

record,

including

hearing

held

a

and

review

before

the

de
of

novo

magistrate

of

the

transcript

a

review

of

the

judge,

the

court

concludes that the objections should be overruled and
the magistrate judge’s recommendation adopted, with the
following

exceptions.

without prejudice.

First,

the

dismissal

will

be

Second, the court does not adopt

the portion of the recommendation denying the motion to
amend because it was drafted by a prisoner other than
the plaintiff; it appears that plaintiff may have a
limited right to drafting assistance from a “jailhouse
lawyer”

due

apparent

to

lack

his

of

low

access

level
to

of

education

assistance

from

and

his

lawyers.

See Adams v. James, 784 F.2d 1077, 1081 (11th Cir.
1986)

(noting

assistance

that

[with

“a

prisoner

litigation]
2

has

from

the

other

right

to

inmates”)

(citing Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483 (1969) (holding
that States may not bar prisoners from assisting other
prisoners with habeas litigation where State does not
provide
However,

available
rather

alternatives

than

resolve

to

that

aid

prisoners)).

issue,

the

court

adopts the recommendation’s alternative rationale that
the motion to amend should be denied due to futility.
An appropriate judgment will be entered.
DONE, this the 29th day of September, 2017.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE