Carter v. Williams et al

Filing 17

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

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