RADI v. DOUGHERTY COUNTY COURTHOUSE

Filing 3

ORDER for Petitioner / Plaintiff to Recast her Petition or Complaint using the appropriate form, and to either pay the appropriate filing fee or seek to proceed IFP. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE THOMAS Q LANGSTAFF on 9/24/2024. (TQL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ALBANY DIVISION
AMANDA ALICE RADI,

:
:
Petitioner,
:
:
VS.
:
:
DOUGHERTY COUNTY COURTHOUSE, :
:
Respondent.
:
________________________________ :

1:24-CV-141 (LAG)

ORDER
Pro se Petitioner Amanda Alice Radi has filed a pleading that has been docketed as
a petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1.) Petitioner appears
to raise issues regarding a child custody proceeding which occurred in state court. Id. at
4-6. Petitioner asserts she was “denied due process to present any evidence” during this
state proceeding, and alleges “Georgia violated the full faith and credit clause” because she
has “a final order from California.” Id. at 17. Petitioner requests this Court “[v]oid/overturn
all judgements [sic] as they are false.” Id.
At the outset, the Court notes that Petitioner has filed this pleading on a form
designated for use by habeas corpus petitioners who are seeking relief under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. However, this Court may only grant a writ of habeas corpus under § 2254 to “a
person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in
custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(a). Petitioner does not appear to be incarcerated, as her pleading lists “N/A” under

“Place of Confinement.” (Doc. 1 at 1.) Accordingly, to the extent Petitioner’s pleading is
attempting to seek a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, it is subject to sua
sponte dismissal for requesting relief from this Court that it has no authority to grant.
Petitioner may be attempting to allege a civil rights violation under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Petitioner may raise a claim under § 1983 by alleging (1) an act or omission
deprived her of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or a statute of
the United States; and (2) the act or omission was committed by a person acting under color
of state law. Hale v. Tallapoosa Cnty., 50 F.3d 1579, 1582 (11th Cir. 1995). If Petitioner
is seeking to raise a claim under § 1983, she should recast her complaint on the Court’s
standard § 1983 form. In so doing, it is futile to name entities and offices such as the
Dougherty County Courthouse as Defendants. See Stegman v. Georgia, 290 F. App'x 320,
322–23 (11th Cir. 2008) (“[C]laims against the Superior Court and the DeKalb County
Probate Court are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.”); see also Christopher v. Glynn
Cnty., 2020 WL 5736597 at *5 n.5 (S.D. Ga. 2020) (“Glynn County Sheriff's Department
and Glynn County Superior Court are not legal entities subject to suit under § 1983.”).
Moreover, conclusory references to “administration”, “employees”, “staff”, “the office”,
and/or all persons within a category in general fails to put any certain individual on notice
of an alleged wrongdoing. See Williams v. Bennett, 689 F.2d 1370, 1380 (11th Cir. 1983)
(citations omitted) (stating there must be “proof of an affirmative causal connection
between the actions taken by a particular person ‘under color of state law’ and the
constitutional deprivation”). In other words, collective liability, i.e., when claims are

2

brought against defendants such as “office”, “administration” or “staff”, is not permitted
under § 1983 and a plaintiff must link a claim to a specific state actor who committed the
civil rights violation. See Hale, 50 F.3d at 1582; Richardson v. Johnson, 598 F.3d 734,
738 (11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (dismissal of a claim is appropriate where “the description
in [plaintiff's] complaint was insufficient to identify the defendant”).
Accordingly, if Petitioner still wishes to pursue a federal claim, 1 she must recast her
pleading on the proper form for the legally actionable federal claim she wishes to bring
after considering this Court’s guidance above. If Petitioner wishes to complain of a civil
rights violation, then she should submit her claim on the § 1983 form and request relief
that is available in a § 1983 civil action. Petitioner shall have FOURTEEN (14) DAYS
from the date of this Order to recast her pleading on the appropriate form. The recast
pleading shall supersede (take the place of) her initial pleadings and this Court will not
look back at her prior pleadings to determine whether Petitioner has an actionable claim.
In addition, Petitioner did not pay a filing fee upon filing her pleading in this Court.
Thus, Petitioner shall have FOURTEEN (14) DAYS from the date shown on this Order to
pay the required filing fee for the type of claim she submits. The filing fee for a habeas
corpus petition is $5.00; the filing fee for a § 1983 case is $405.00. If Petitioner is indigent
and unable to prepay the full amount of the filing fee, then she can request leave to proceed

At this early stage in the litigation, Petitioner is advised that she does have the additional
option to request that this Court dismiss this civil action without prejudice so that she may
pursue remedies through administrative offices, state courts, or other entities that may grant
her the relief she seeks, or for any other reason she deems necessary. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(a)(1)(A).
1

3

in forma pauperis.
To reiterate, Petitioner shall have FOURTEEN (14) DAYS from the date of this
Order to (1) recast her pleading on the appropriate form for the type of federal civil action
she intends to pursue, and (2) pay the appropriate filing fee for that civil action or if
indigent, file a complete motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
While this action is pending, Petitioner must also immediately inform the Court in
writing of any change in her mailing address. There will be no service of process in this
case until further order of the Court. Failure to fully and timely comply with this Order
may result in the dismissal of this civil action.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to forward Petitioner a copy of the § 1983
standard form as well as a copy of the standard application to proceed without prepayment
of fees.
SO ORDERED AND DIRECTED, this 24th day of September, 2024.
s/ Thomas Q. Langstaff
United States Magistrate Judge

4