Carter v. Williams et al

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Abdul K Kallon on 12/23/2013. (PSM)

Download PDF
FILED 2013 Dec-23 AM 11:45 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHEASTERN DIVISION JERRY GIBBS CARTER, Plaintiff, vs. JUDGE MARTH E. WILLIAMS, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action Number 5:13-cv-857-AKK-PWG MEMORANDUM OPINION The magistrate judge filed a report and recommendation on November 15, 2013, recommending that this action be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and/or (2). Doc. 14. On November 22, 2013, Plaintiff filed an objection to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. Doc. 15. Plaintiff’s objection centers around the doctrine of absolute immunity. In order to invoke the exception to absolute immunity premised on the assertion that the judge acted in the absence of subject matter jurisdiction, a plaintiff must show that the judge acted not merely “in excess of jurisdiction,” but instead in the “clear absence of all jurisdiction.” Dykes v. Hosemann, 776 F.2d 942, 947 (11th Cir. 1985) (quoting Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 at 356–57 (1978)) (emphasis added). Plaintiff contends that because he challenges jurisdiction in his underlying criminal case, absolute immunity should not apply at this stage of the proceedings. Id. This Page 1 of 3 argument misses the mark, as Plaintiff makes no attempt to demonstrate why there is a clear absence of all jurisdiction. Further, Plaintiff’s objection to the magistrate judge’s failure to address his amended count ten, doc. 12, and count eleven, doc. 13, is not well placed. These counts seek monetary damages from immune defendants and Plaintiff’s immediate release from jail, issues the magistrate judge addressed in his report and recommendation. Plaintiff’s amended counts also seek injunctive relief against further criminal prosecution, however this form of relief is inappropriate. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) (holding that a federal court should not enjoin a state criminal prosecution begun prior to the institution of the federal suit except in very unusual situations, where necessary to prevent immediate irreparable injury); Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66 (1971) (holding that the considerations in Younger require federal courts to abstain from issuing declaratory as well as injunctive relief). After careful consideration of the record in this case, the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, and plaintiff’s objections, the court hereby ADOPTS the report of the magistrate judge. The court further ACCEPTS the recommendation of the magistrate judge that this action be DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and (2). A separate order in conformity with this Memorandum Opinion will be entered contemporaneously herewith. Page 2 of 3 DONE this 23rd day of December, 2013. ________________________________ ABDUL K. KALLON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Page 3 of 3

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?