Davis v. Gratham et al (INMATE 1)

Filing 13

ORDER: it is ORDERED as follows: 1) The 11 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge be and is hereby ADOPTED; 2) The 12 Objection be and is hereby OVERRULED; 3) Plf's 42 USC 1983 claims against the Dfts be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (iii); 4) Plf's challenges to the veracity and sufficiency of the evidence in his pending state criminal cases and his request for dismissal of those cases be summarily dismissed pursuant to 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii ) as this Court must abstain from considering any such challenges in accordance with the Younger abstention doctrine; 5) This case be dismissed prior to service of process pursuant to 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Signed by Honorable Judge R. Austin Huffaker, Jr on 11/18/2020. (wcl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
GARTAVIS KE’ANDRE DAVIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
MADISON GRATHAM, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 3:20-cv-591-RAH

ORDER
On October 21, 2020, the Magistrate Judge entered a Recommendation that this case
should be dismissed prior to service of process pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i),
(ii), and (iii). Specifically, he recommended that Plaintiff Gartavis Ke’Andre Davis’ claims
for relief against the Honorable A. David Johnson, Circuit Court Judge of Russell County;
Kenneth Davis, District Attorney; Madison Gratham, Assistant District Attorney; and
Jacqueline Hackney, the victim of the alleged criminal offenses, for actions which occurred
during state court proceedings related to the rape and burglary charges pending against him
before the Russell County Circuit Court should be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (iii). In addition, the Magistrate Judge recommended the
Plaintiff’s challenges to the veracity and sufficiency of the evidence in his pending state
criminal cases and his request for dismissal of those cases be summarily dismissed pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) as this Court must abstain from considering any such
challenges in accordance with the Younger abstention doctrine.

On November 3, 2020, Plaintiff Davis filed an Objection in which he acknowledges
his understanding that he is not entitled to monetary relief. (Doc. 12, at 1.) He, however,
argues he is innocent of the pending charges, the evidence is insufficient to support a
conviction, and there is no basis for his continued confinement or prosecution. (Id., at 13.) As discussed in the Recommendation (Doc. 11), this Court abstains from considering
any challenges to pending state court proceedings.
After careful review and consideration of the Objection, and upon independent
review of the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and file in this case, it is
ORDERED as follows:
1. The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 11) be and is hereby
ADOPTED.
2. The Objection (Doc. 12) be and is hereby OVERRULED.
3. Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against the Defendants be dismissed with
prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (iii).
4. Plaintiff’s challenges to the veracity and sufficiency of the evidence in his
pending state criminal cases and his request for dismissal of those cases be
summarily dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) as this Court
must abstain from considering any such challenges in accordance with the
Younger abstention doctrine.
5. This case be dismissed prior to service of process pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

DONE, this 18th day of November, 2020.

/s/ R. Austin Huffaker, Jr.
R. AUSTIN HUFFAKER, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE