Williams v. Gordy et al
Filing
13
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge L Scott Coogler on 6/14/2018. (PSM)
FILED
2018 Jun-14 AM 09:56
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION
ALFRED LEE WILLIAMS,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
WARDEN CHRISTOPHER GORDY, )
)
et al.,
)
Defendants.
)
Case No.: 5:17-cv-01648-LSC-JEO
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The magistrate judge filed a report on April 19, 2018, recommending this
action be dismissed without prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). (Doc. 9). The magistrate judge
notified the plaintiff of his right to file objections to the report and
recommendation and extended the time to file such objections at the plaintiff’s
request. (Docs. 9-11). On May 31, 2018, the plaintiff filed a “writ of mandamus”
which shall be construed to be a motion to assign this case to a district judge, a
motion to disqualify United States Magistrate Judge John E. Ott, and objections to
the report and recommendation. (Doc. 12).
The plaintiff demands the court vacate the assignment of his case to
Magistrate Judge Ott, vacate the report and recommendation, and reassign the case
to an Article III judge. (Id. at 1). He raises various arguments (constitutional and
otherwise) rejecting Judge Ott’s assignment and declares he unknowingly
consented to the assignment. (Id. at 8-19). The plaintiff also asserts Judge Ott’s
“decision’ in the report and recommendation is not “appealable.” (Id. at 4).
The plaintiff is mistaken because the undersigned (an Article III judge), not
Magistrate Judge Ott, has been assigned to this case. Therefore, his motion to
reassign this action to a district judge is DENIED. Further, plaintiff has not
consented to Judge Ott’s jurisdiction over this case. 1 Although the case was
referred to Judge Ott, the referral does not grant him jurisdiction or authority to
make decisions regarding the plaintiff’s claims. The report and recommendation is
not a judgment or decision; rather it contains findings of fact and recommendations
made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. At this juncture, there are no decisions to
appeal.
The purpose of affording the plaintiff an opportunity to object to the report
and recommendation is so that he can object to any errors of law or fact contained
in the report. After the objection period, the district judge assigned to the case
reviews the action de novo, meaning the undersigned independently canvasses the
entire record, including the report and recommendation and the plaintiff’s
objections, before deciding whether to accept, reject, or modify the report and
recommendation.
1
The only consent signed by the plaintiff is a Prisoner Consent Form (doc. 4), and that document
only grants permission for the filing fee payments to be made from his prison account.
2
In addition to his complaints about assignment and/or referral, the plaintiff
seeks disqualification of Magistrate Judge Ott because he questions Judge Ott’s
impartiality and asserts the report and recommendation shows personal bias in the
defendants’ favor.
(Doc. 12 at 1) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) (a judge shall
disqualify himself if his impartiality “might reasonably be questioned”); 28 U.S.C.
§ 144 (a judge shall proceed no further if a party “files a timely and sufficient
affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or
prejudice against him or in favor of any adverse party”). 2 For the reasons that
follow, the plaintiff’s motion to disqualify Judge Ott is DENIED.
The plaintiff declares the report and recommendation “is not an accurate and
investigated report of the facts,” “does not display a full litigation of both parties,
and is arbitrary, capricious, bias[ed], and” prejudiced. (Id. at 2). He specifically
complains that: (1) the defendants have never been served a copy of the complaint
or directed to answer it, (2) the magistrate judge is improperly acting as both
mediator and advocate for the defendants, and (3) he has been deprived of the
opportunity to conduct discovery. (Id. at 3). Because of the alleged failings, the
plaintiff declares that “there’s no way he could properly file a responsive
objection” to the report and recommendation. (Id. at 20).
2
The plaintiff also cites Rule 21, Fed. R. Civ. P., but that Rule pertains to misjoinder and
nonjoinder of parties and is thus inapplicable.
3
The plaintiff lacks understanding of the manner in which this court manages
prisoner civil rights cases and misunderstands the manner in which federal district
courts are required to screen prisoner cases. This court, i.e. the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, initially utilizes an informal
special report procedure in actions in which prisoners or detainees allege that they
have been deprived of constitutional rights. Under the special report procedure,
once a complaint is reviewed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A, and if it is
determined that the complaint is not due to be dismissed, the magistrate judge
enters an order for special report, directing the clerk of the court to send the named
defendants a copy of the complaint and requesting the defendants sign waivers of
service and submit a special report concerning the factual allegations made by the
plaintiff in his complaint.
The defendants are also informed in the order for special report that they
may submit the special report under oath or accompanied by affidavits so that the
court may, if appropriate, consider the special report as a motion for summary
judgment pursuant to Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A summons and
complaint are served upon a defendant only after the defendant refuses or fails to
respond to the court’s order for special report.
The Northern District’s special report procedure complies with federal
statutory law requiring all district courts to screen and dismiss prisoner complaints
4
prior to service if the court finds the complaint is frivolous, malicious, seeks
monetary damages from a defendant immune from monetary relief, or fails to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)-(b) and §
1915(e)(2)(B). Thus, the 28 U.S.C. 1915A report and recommendation, the lack of
service on the defendants, and the lack of discovery at this juncture does not show
questionable partiality or advocacy and personal bias in favor the defendants by
Judge Ott.
Next, the plaintiff contends the magistrate judge is biased because “[n]o one
seeking a” federal magistrate judge position “here in Alabama is going to rule
against Alabama Officials or Alabama Supreme Court Justices, the very people he
or she has to rely upon for support in order to obtain and maintain his or her job
and position as a federal magistrate.” (Doc. 12 at 5). The plaintiff is in error.
“Alabama Officials” nor “Alabama Supreme Court Justices” have no authority to
appoint or reappoint federal magistrate judges. Federal magistrate judges are
appointed (and reappointed) by the district judges within the district they serve.
See 28 U.S.C. § 631(a). The requirement that an appointed magistrate judge be a
member in good standing of the Alabama State Bar for at least five (5) years does
not, as the plaintiff suggests, indicate all magistrate judges are biased and beholden
to any state official or the state’s highest court. (Doc. 12 at 4 (citing 28 U.S.C. §
631(b))).
5
To the extent the plaintiff makes any discernible objections, he declares the
“defendants were sued” for “deliberate indifference as they denied him of a serious
medical needs and lied to him about not removing the bullet from” his “spine.”
(Id. at 3). He expresses his true belief that his “injury is serious above ‘imminent
danger.’” (Id.). These declarations simply repeat, in conclusory fashion, facts and
arguments previously made. Elsewhere, the plaintiff asserts the report “is not an
accurate and investigated report of the facts” (id. at 2), but he identifies no factual
inaccuracies or errors in the report.
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the
court file, including the report and recommendation, the magistrate judge’s report
is hereby ADOPTED and the recommendation is ACCEPTED. Therefore, in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the plaintiff’s federal claims are due to be
dismissed without prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
With regard to the plaintiff’s state law claims only, his request for
supplemental jurisdiction is due to be denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)
because he has alleged no state law claims.
A Final Judgment will be entered.
6
DONE and ORDERED on June 14, 2018.
_____________________________
L. Scott Coogler
United States District Judge
160704
7
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?