THOMAS et al v. Chattahoochee Judicial Circuit et al

Filing 28

ORDER denying 27 MOTION to Stay proceedings of case 4:14-cv-00009-CDL-MSH filed by JAMES R THOMAS, JR, and granting 23 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint, filed by JAMES R THOMAS, JR. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION recommending denying 26 MOTION for Recusal filed by JAMES R THOMAS, JR, and recommending dismissing for failure to state a claim 23 Amended Complaint, filed by JAMES R THOMAS, JR. Ordered by US Magistrate Judge STEPHEN HYLES on 11-4-14. (mpm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
JAMES R. THOMAS, JR.,
SABRINA R. THOMAS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CHATTAHOOCHEE JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CASE NO. 4:14-CV-9-CDL-MSH

ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION
On October 17, 2014, the Court issued an Order (ECF No. 25) adopting the Report
and Recommendation (ECF No. 20) recommending dismissal of Plaintiffs’ action, but
directed the undersigned to review Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint (ECF No. 23)1 and
issue a new Report and Recommendation thereon. Subsequently, Plaintiffs filed a second
motion for recusal (ECF No. 26) and a motion to stay proceedings pending the
determination of a petition for writ of mandamus filed in the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals (ECF No. 27).

For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiffs motion to stay

proceedings is denied, and it is recommended that their motion for recusal be denied.
In their Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs James and Sabrina Thomas assert claims
against Defendants Chattahoochee Judicial Circuit (“CJC”), Georgia Governor Nathan
Deal, Georgia Attorney General Samuel Olens, Clerk of the Superior Court of

1

Plaintiffs’ motion to amend is hereby granted.

Chattahoochee County Laura Marion, Kia Autosport of Columbus, Inc. (“Kia
Autosport”), Rogers, Towers, Bailey, Jones & Gay, SunTrust Bank, The Firm of
Dickenson Gilroy, LLC, and unnamed John and Jane Does. (Am. Compl. 1.) The
undersigned has reviewed Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) and recommends dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint realleges violations of their constitutional rights
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and various Georgia state laws. Like the original Complaint,
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint arises out of a civil action brought by Plaintiffs against
SunTrust Bank and Kia Autosport in the Superior Court of Chattahoochee County. A full
description of the background claim leading to this action is laid out in the undersigned’s
first Report and Recommendation in this case (Report & Recommendation 2-3, ECF No.
20).
Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint details their understanding of the actions taken by
the Superior Court with regard to that lawsuit. They reallege, without providing any
factual support, that a conspiracy was undertaken in which Superior Court Judge Frank J.
Jordan, Jr. allied with court staff and the attorneys for Kia Autosport and SunTrust Bank
to knowingly and maliciously deprive Plaintiffs of their “Protected Rights” in the proper
consideration of their case, and that the other judges of the CJC allowed Judge Jordan to
do so. They claim that a broad conspiracy exists amongst the judges of the CJC, in which
the judges engage in ex parte communications with certain litigants allowing them to
have cases assigned to particular judges and ultimately prevail in litigation at the expense
2

of non-conspiring litigants. Finally, Plaintiffs contend that they brought their complaints
about the actions of the CJC to the attention of Governor Deal and Attorney General
Olens, but both abdicated their responsibilities under the Georgia Constitution by failing
to do anything about the injustice committed against Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs seek millions of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages against
all Defendants and also seek declaratory and permanent injunctive relief to remedy the
violation of their “Protected Rights.”
DISCUSSION
I.

Pending Motions
Presently pending before the Court are two motions filed by Plaintiffs. First,

Plaintiffs move for the second time to have the undersigned and District Judge Clay Land
recused from this case. (ECF No. 26.) Plaintiffs’ first motion for recusal was denied by
Judge Land on September 29, 2014. (ECF No. 19.) The second motion makes further
unsubstantiated claims of bias against Plaintiffs based on the same previously rejected
arguments. Their only new assertion is that the undersigned and Judge Land are biased
based on newly filed recommendations and orders of the Court. However, as Plaintiffs
note in their own motion, “as a general rule, a judge’s rulings in the same case are not
valid grounds for recusal.” Pl.’s Second Mot. for Recusal 3, ECF No. 26; accord Liteky v.
United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (“[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute
a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.”). Therefore, for the same reasons discussed
in the Court’s September 29, 2014 Order, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s
motion for recusal be denied.
3

Second, Plaintiffs move to stay the proceedings in this case pending the Eleventh
Circuit’s ruling on their Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (ECF No. 27.) Plaintiffs
attached a document titled “Petition for Writ of Mandamus” which seeks the writ from
the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to require the undersigned and Judge Land to
recuse from the case and appoint another judge. The Court has searched the Eleventh
Circuit’s CM-ECF system to determine if such a petition has been filed, and has found
none. Given that no petition has been filed for review by the Eleventh Circuit, a stay of
these proceedings pending that review is moot. Plaintiffs’ motion is therefore denied.
II.

Review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), “a district court must dismiss an in forma

pauperis action if the court determines that the action is frivolous or malicious[,] fails to
state a claim on which relief may be granted[,] or seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief.” Thibeaux v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 275 F.
App’x 889, 892 (11th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). An
action is frivolous when the complaint “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Additionally, “[a] case is frivolous if the
factual allegations are clearly baseless, or if it is based on an indisputably meritless legal
theory.” Johnson v. Wilbur, 375 F. App’x 960, 963 (11th Cir. 2010).
Upon review of the original Complaint in this case, the Court found that Plaintiffs
failed to state a claim because the statements that the actions of Defendants violated their
rights are not factual allegations but merely legal conclusions. Plaintiffs gave no factual
support for their conclusions that some widespread conspiracy was undertaken by all of
4

the judges of the CJC, the court staff, and the attorneys representing Kia Autosport and
SunTrust Bank to deprive Plaintiffs of their access to the courts or any of the other
supposed Fourteenth Amendment rights. Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint again fails to
contain such factual allegations. “[C]onclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions of
facts or legal conclusions masquerading as facts will not prevent dismissal.” Oxford
Asset Mgmt., Ltd. v. Jaharis, 297 F.3d 1182, 1188 (11th Cir. 2002).
In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs have alleged little beyond the allegations
contained in their original Complaint. Plaintiffs have added nothing substantive to their
allegations. The additional information is further conjecture made by Plaintiffs to explain
what they see as the unjust handling of their case. They have alleged no facts to support
the broad conspiracy that they claim exists beyond their assumptions and baseless
accusations.
Consequently, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails to state a claim under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 and the Court does not have supplemental jurisdiction to hear the claims
brought alleging state law violations. “Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a district court has the
discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pending state law claims
if the district court has dismissed all federal claims prior to trial.” Bus. Realty Inv. Co. v.
Insituform Techs., Inc., 564 F. App'x 954, 957 (11th Cir. 2014). The Complaint and
Amended Complaint should therefore be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, it is recommended that Plaintiff’s Complaint and
Amended Complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
5

granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Plaintiffs
may file objections to this Recommendation in writing with the United States District
Judge within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy hereof.
SO RECOMMENDED, this 4th day of November, 2014.
/s/ Stephen Hyles
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6