GILBERT v. GEORGIA
ORDER denying 7 Motion for Reconsideration re 5 Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and 6 Judgment. Ordered by Judge Marc Thomas Treadwell on 7/19/2012. (tlh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ELISHA GILBERT, JR.,
STATE OF GEORGIA,
NO. 5:12-cv-226 (MTT)
On June 27, 2012, the undersigned dismissed Petitioner ELISHA GILBERT’S
mandamus petition (relating to his conviction of speeding in Dooly County) for a
number of reasons, including this Court having no mandamus jurisdiction over state
judicial officers. (Doc. 5). The Clerk of Court entered Judgment on June 28, 2012
(Doc. 6). Before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 7), in which
he objects to the undersigned’s assuming jurisdiction of the case from the Magistrate
Judge and to the Clerk’s entry of Judgment, which was electronically signed by a
deputy clerk. Petitioner also alleges that the Dooly County Superior Court denied his
filing of a state mandamus petition, which the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed, and
thus that the Judge and Justice did not act in their judicial capacities.
Petitioner’s objections to this Court’s dismissal of his petition are all meritless.
Although 28 U.S.C. § 636 allows cases to be referred to Magistrate Judges, it by no
means requires that the Court do so. Moreover, the Clerk, through his deputy clerk,
properly entered judgment pursuant to Rule 58(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Finally, the specific actions taken by the state courts in no way affects the
basic principle that this Court cannot compel state judicial officers to act on Petitioner’s
behalf. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is accordingly DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 19th day of July, 2012.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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?