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

Filing 46

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

Download PDF
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

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?