Martin v. Haddock
Filing
10
MEMORANDUM OPINION ADOPTING and ACCEPTING the 8 Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and OVERRULING Plaintiff's 9 Objections. Signed by Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins on 5/9/2018. (JLC)
FILED
2018 May-09 AM 09:50
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
MIDDLE DIVISION
RICK DALE MARTIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
STEVEN E. HADDOCK, Judge,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
) Case No. 4:18-cv-00352-VEH-TMP
)
)
)
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The magistrate judge filed a report on April 13, 2018, recommending this action
be dismissed with prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). (Doc. 8). The plaintiff was notified of his
right to file objections within fourteen (14) days of the report and recommendation
(id.), and on April 20, 2018, the court received the plaintiff’s objections (doc. 9).
In his amended complaint, the plaintiff asserts the sole defendant, a state court
judge, wrongly denied the plaintiff’s sixth petition for habeas relief under Rule 32 of
the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure. (Doc. 7). The plaintiff objects to the
magistrate judge’s citation to Rule 32.1, Ala.R.Crim.P., because his application to file
a successive habeas petition has been denied. (Doc. 9 at 1). He asserts that the court
knows 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) bars his action and that the state court judge violated
judicial cannons of ethics by accusing the plaintiff of altering documents. (Id., at 1-2).
The plaintiff also objects to the magistrate judge’s finding that diversity jurisdiction is
lacking; he objects because he filed his claim under penalty of perjury; and he objects
because the court ordered the plaintiff not to cite any case law. (Doc. 9 at 2-3).
Defendant Judge Steven Haddock is a Morgan County Circuit Judge. Judges are
entitled to judicial immunity for actions taken in their judicial capacity. Stump v.
Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356 (1978); Sibley v. Lando, 437 F.3d 1067, 1070 (11th Cir.
2005). Judicial immunity is an absolute immunity, and it applies even when a judge’s
acts are in error, malicious, or in excess of jurisdiction. Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234,
1239 (11th Cir. 2000).
Moreover, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, this court cannot review final
judgments of a state court.1 Nicholson v. Shafe, 558 F.3d 1266, 1271 (11th Cir. 2009).
The plaintiff’s attempt to have this court review the findings of Judge Haddock is “a
prohibited appeal of a state court judgment.” Datz v, Kilgore, 51 F.3d 252, 254 (11th
Cir. 1995). The plaintiff’s statement that this court “has jurisdiction to settle this
dispute” (doc. 9 at 2) does not nullify the law which is binding on this court. Nor does
labeling this action as a due process claim change this prohibition. The plaintiff brings
1
The Eleventh Circuit has explained the Rooker-Feldman doctrine recognizes that,
“among the federal courts, Congress authorized only the Supreme Court to reverse or modify a
state court decision.” Helton v. Ramsay, 566 Fed.App’x. 876, 877 (11th Cir. 2014) (citing Exxon
Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005)).
2
this action as an attempt to obtain federal review of the state court’s denial of habeas
relief. Unhappy habeas petitioners trying to couch challenges under § 1983 are the type
of case to which Rooker-Feldman applies. See Carey v. Free, 272 Fed.App’x 875, 876
(11th Cir. 2008); Moore v. Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, 561 Fed.Appx. 427, 430
(5th Cir. 2014) (a § 1983 plaintiff cannot avoid the Rooker-Feldman doctrine by
characterizing a collateral attack on a state court judgment as a “civil rights
complaint”). Regardless of the plaintiff’s labeling of his claims, § 1983 does not
provide this court with the authority to review state court decisions.
Similarly, the plaintiff’s objection to 28 U.S.C. § 1332—requiring diversity
among the parties before the court may consider a state law claim—is without merit.
The parties here are not diverse. The plaintiff is an inmate in the Alabama prison
system and the defendant is a Alabama judge for the Circuit Court of Morgan County.
The lack of diversity between the plaintiff and defendant is fatal to this court exercising
diversity jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See e.g., Carden v. Arkoma
Associates, 494 U.S. 185, 187 (1990) (“Since its enactment, we have interpreted the
diversity statute to require ‘complete diversity’ of citizenship”) (citing Strawbridge v.
Curtiss, 3 Cranch 267, 2 L.Ed. 435 (1806)).
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court
file, including the report and recommendation and the plaintiff’s objections, the
3
plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED. The magistrate judge’s report is hereby
ADOPTED and the recommendation is ACCEPTED. Therefore, in accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), this action is due to be dismissed with prejudice for failing to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.2
A Final Judgment will be entered.
DONE this 9th day of May, 2018.
VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS
United States District Judge
2
As recognized by the magistrate judge in the Report and Recommendation (doc. 8 at 10
n.5), dismissal with prejudice is appropriate in this instance because, no matter any additional facts
pleaded, the plaintiff will never be able to state a viable claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against a state court judge based on the state court judge’s ruling on the plaintiff’s sixth Rule 32
petition.
4
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?