Hughley v. Strange et al (INMATE 2)
ORDERED as follows: 1) The court ADOPTS the 5 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge; 2) Plf's 2 Request for a Preliminary Injunction is DENIED; 3) Plf's federal claims are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to the provisions of 28 US C § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); 4) To the extent that the Complaint asserts state law claims for relief, such claims are DISMISSED without prejudice; 5) The Complaint is DISMISSED prior to service of process. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 3/8/2012. (wcl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
LUTHER R. STRANGE, Attorney General
of Alabama, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12cv028-WHA
This case is before the court on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #5),
the Plaintiff's Written Objection (Doc. #6), and the Plaintiff's Amendment to Motion (Doc. #7).
The court has conducted an independent evaluation and de novo review of the Recommendation,
the Objections, and the file.
Plaintiff objects to the Recommendation that his complaint be dismissed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff filed this § 1983 action seeking damages and challenging his
imprisonment due to charges pending against him based on application of the Alabama
Community Notification Act (ACNA). Plaintiff has a prior conviction for second degree rape.
Plaintiff’s objection claims that the Magistrate Judge failed to review his 1987 guilty plea
colloquy before entering a recommendation. Review of that plea is not necessary to the court's
disposition of this matter based on the allegations presented in the complaint. While Plaintiff
makes various objections with regard to his contention that application of the ACNA to him is
unconstitutional, as explained in the Recommendation the court must abstain from considering
the merits of Plaintiff's challenges to the validity of his current imprisonment based on the
charges against him stemming from ACNA violations as well as any general claim made
regarding the constitutionality of Plaintiff's current confinement. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37
(1971); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1944). The Recommendation also noted that Heck
and its progeny bar this court from reviewing any challenges which might invalidate Plaintiff's
second degree rape conviction.
Plaintiff submitted an amended objection. His objection regarding the absence of an
initial appearance was a claim raised in the complaint and addressed in the Recommendation.
His additional objections concerning denial of bond as well as denial of access to the law library
for 45 days are new allegations. The operative claims presented in the complaint primarily
concern Plaintiff's challenge to his incarceration based on charges stemming from his
unspecified violations of the ACNA. Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding
new claims in his objections. Thus, even if there were any merit to Plaintiff's conclusory claims
concerning bond and access to the law library, the Defendants named to this action (Attorney
General Strange, the PSC Director, and Sheriff Jones) would not be responsible for those
matters. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a)(2) (defendants may be joined in one action as defendants if any
right to relief is asserted against them arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of
transactions or occurrences); Fed.R.Civ.P. 18(a) (allowing multiple claims against opposing
party but not multiple unrelated claims against different defendants.)
For the above reasons, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. The court ADOPTS the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
2. Plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction (Doc. #2) is DENIED.
3. Plaintiff's federal claims are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to the provisions
of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
4. To the extent that the Complaint asserts state law claims for relief, such claims are
DISMISSED without prejudice.
5. The Complaint is DISMISSED prior to service of process.
DONE this 8th day of March, 2012.
/s/ W. Harold Albritton
W. HAROLD ALBRITTON
SENIOR 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?