Curry v. Thrower et al
Filing
49
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING and ACCEPTING the 43 Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff's 47 Motion to Amend Complaint is DENIED. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 11/8/2019. (JLC)
FILED
2019 Nov-08 PM 12:10
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
WESTERN DIVISION
MARTINEZ CURRY,
Plaintiff,
v.
FELICIA THROWER, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 7:16-cv-1819-RDP-GMB
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The Magistrate Judge filed a report on August 27, 2019, recommending that
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted and the federal claims in this
action be dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. # 43). The Magistrate Judge further
recommended that Plaintiff’s state-law claims be dismissed without prejudice
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. (Id.). Plaintiff filed objections to the report and
recommendation on October 16, 2019 (Doc. # 48).
Plaintiff’s first objection (doc. # 48 at 6) is directed toward the Magistrate
Judge’s statement that a § 1985 conspiracy claim requires a showing that the
defendants acted with “racial or otherwise class based animus.” (Doc. # 43 at 10).
Plaintiff cites Kush v. Rutledge, 460 U.S. 719 (1983) for the proposition that no such
showing is required. However, the Kush case involved claims asserted under §
1985(2), and the ruling was specific to that subsection of the statute. The claims
asserted in Plaintiff’s complaint are asserted under § 1985(3).
Plaintiff also contends that the Magistrate Judge wrongly concluded that the
abuse of process claim was due to be dismissed as meritless. (Doc. # 48 at 7).
Plaintiff contends that Document 37-1 “clearly shows [the defendants] acted outside
of boundaries of legitimate procedure.” (Id. at 8). This objection is without merit.
The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Plaintiff had failed to establish an
essential element of an abuse of process claim.
In his discussion of Plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim and the essential
elements required for that claim, the Magistrate Judge concluded, inter alia, that the
state court proceedings on which the claim is based were not concluded in Plaintiff’s
favor. (Doc # 43 at 13). Plaintiff objects to that conclusion, arguing that Defendants
sought to have Plaintiff revoked on his underlying fifteen-year sentence, yet he was
only revoked to serve his split sentence. (Doc. # 48 at 8; Doc. # 23-1 at 46-49). This
objection is frivolous. The state court revocation proceedings clearly did not end in
Plaintiff’s favor, as he was revoked from community corrections and ordered to
serve time in the state penitentiary. The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that
Plaintiff had failed to establish a necessary element of his malicious prosecution
claim.
2
Plaintiff next objects to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that the false
imprisonment claim is due to be dismissed on the basis of the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine. (Doc. # 48 at 8). Plaintiff contends that the state court “did not rule on the
merits of over detention but ruled upon the notion that [he] was seeking some sort
of credit toward his sentence in error.” (Id. at 9). He therefore contends that the
fourth factor necessary to establish Rooker-Feldman (i.e., that the state court either
adjudicated the issue that is now before the federal court, or that issue was
inextricably intertwined with the state court’s judgment) is not established in the
record before this court. (Id. at 9). However, as the Magistrate Judge correctly
concluded, the issue of “over detention” was inextricably intertwined with the state
court proceedings which concluded with a final adjudication on May 7, 2018.
Furthermore, the Magistrate Judge also correctly recognized that the specific issue
of Defendants’ alleged conspiracy to cause “over detention” could have been raised
in Plaintiff’s Rule 32 petition but was not. (Doc. # 43 at 15, n. 14).
Finally, Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s statement in footnote 15 of
the Report and Recommendation that the “over detention” issue was raised in the
context of the § 1985 conspiracy claim, a claim that was rejected on the merits. (Doc.
# 43 at 16). Although the accuracy or inaccuracy of the Magistrate Judge’s footnote
would have no bearing on the ultimate outcome of this matter, it is notable that
paragraphs 19 and 20 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint allege that it was
3
Defendants’ “conspiracy to effect overdetention” that caused his damages and that
“[t]he essential elements of a 42 U.S.C. § 1985 claim are: (1) a conspiracy; (2) to
deprive plaintiff of equal protection or equal privileges and immunities; (3) and act
in furtherance of the conspiracy; and (4) an injury or deprivation resulting
therefrom.” (Doc. # 23 at 7). This language clearly demonstrates Plaintiff’s intent to
assert the “over detention” claim in the context of his §1985 conspiracy claim, a
claim that the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded was meritless. Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s objections to the report and recommendation are OVERRULED.
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the
court file, including the report and recommendation and the objections thereto, the
Magistrate Judge’s report is hereby ADOPTED and the recommendation is
ACCEPTED. Finding that no genuine issues of material fact exist, the court
ORDERS that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (doc. # 29) is due to be
GRANTED. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s federal claims are due to be dismissed with
prejudice. Plaintiff’s state law claims are due to be dismissed without prejudice,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. A separate Final Judgment will be entered.
Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint (doc. # 47) is DENIED. The court’s
October 31, 2018 Order notified Plaintiff that no further amendments would be
allowed absent good cause shown. (Doc. # 24 at 2). Plaintiff has failed to
demonstrate good cause to allow an amendment at this late date in the proceedings.
4
The Clerk is DIRECTED to serve a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and
Order and its accompanying Final Judgment on Plaintiff and on counsel of record.
DONE and ORDERED this November 8, 2019.
_________________________________
R. DAVID PROCTOR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
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?