Gay v. Head
Filing
4
ORDER and OPINION adopting the 3 Magistrate's Final Report and Recommendation and dismissing the Petitions for Mandamus. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 10/31/11. (ddm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER DANIEL GAY,
Petitioner,
v.
1: ll-cv-2S0S-WSD
MR. PATRICK H. HEAD et al.,
Respondents.
I
I
CHRISTOPHER DANIEL GAY,
Petitioner,
1:11-cv-2510-WSD
v.
MRS. ADELE P. GRUBBS et al.,
Respondents.
I
I
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Linda T. Walker's Final
Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), which recommends dismissing Petitioner
Christopher Daniel Gay's ("Petitioner") Petitions for Mandamus Relief in civil
actions 1: ll-cv-2505-WSD and 1:11-cv-2510-WSD (the "Petitions"). The
Petitions are identical but Petitioner mailed them separately and the Clerk docketed
them as separate civil actions. Because the Petitioners are identical the Magistrate
Judge issued a single R&R recommending their dismissal. Petitioner has not filed
objections to the R&R.
I.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is currently incarcerated in a Tennessee state prison. While
serving his current sentence in August 2009, he was indicted in Cobb County,
Georgia and a detainer was lodged against him with the Tennessee authorities. On
August 24, 2009, pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act, Petitioner
sought extradition to Georgia for trial on the Georgia charges. Petitioner contends
the Georgia authorities were required to extradite him within 180 days and that
they did not do so until 2011.
The R&R finds that after Petitioner's extradition to Cobb County, Petitioner
pleaded guilty in May 2011 to two of the three counts of the indictment that was
the subject of the detainer originally lodged against him in Tennessee. He received
a four year sentence of imprisonment, running concurrently with other any other
sentence Petitioner is now serving, and with credit for time served in jail or prison
since August 24, 2009.
On July 29,2011, Petitioner filed his Petitions in this Court against the
Superior Court Judge and District Attorney in Cobb County who were involved in
his sentencing. Petitioner seeks credit for the time he served in jail or prison while
awaiting extradition to Georgia, beginning on August 24,2009. On August 5,
2011, the Magistrate issued the R&R and recommended dismissing both Petitions.
The R&R notes that Petitioner received credit toward his Georgia sentence for the
time he spent awaiting extradition, beginning August 24,2009, and thus he has
already received the relief he asks for in his Petitions. The R&R further notes that
Petitioner seeks federal mandamus relief, which is not available against state courts
or judicial officers. Finally, to the extent Petitioner seeks relief under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, the R&R concludes that Section 1983 is not available to challenge
Petitioner's term of imprisonment. Petitioner instead would be required to file a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which Petitioner cannot yet do because he has
not exhausted his state court remedies. Petitioner has not filed any objections to
the R&R's findings of fact or conclusions of law.
II.
DISCUSSION
A.
Legal Standard
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and
recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate
judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v.
Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). A
district judge "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report
or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made."
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). With respect to those findings and recommendations to
which a party has not asserted objections, the Court must conduct a plain error
review of the record. United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (lith Cir. 1983),
cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1050 (1984). Because Petitioner has not objected to the
R&R, the Court reviews the R&R for plain error.
B.
Discussion
Having reviewed the R&R for plain error and finding none, the Court agrees
that the Petitions are required to be dismissed. By statute, a federal district court
may only issue a writ of mandamus to "compel an officer or employee of the
United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff." 28
U.S.C. § 1361. "[A] federal court lacks the general power to issue writs of
mandamus to direct state courts and their judicial officers in the performance of
their duties where mandamus is the only relief sought." Moye v. Clerk, DeKalb
Cnty. Super. Ct., 474 F.2d 1275, 1276 (5th Cir.1973). Petitioner therefore cannot
proceed under Section 1361.
Petitioner also cannot proceed under Section 1983 because he seeks to
shorten his term of imprisonment. An action that seeks to challenge the fact or
duration of a prisoner's confinement, which would result in immediate or speedier
release, must be brought as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 481 (1994). The Court further agrees with the
recommendation that, since it appears Petitioner has not exhausted his state
remedies for challenging his state conviction, the Petitions should not be construed
as petitions for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Because Plaintiff appears to have obtained the reliefhe seeks (credit for the
time served while awaiting extradition), and because Plaintiff has not brought
claims that are cognizable under either 28 U.S.C. § 1361 or 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the
Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's recommendations to dismiss the Petitions.
III.
CONCLUSION
F or the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petitions for Mandamus filed by
Petitioner Christopher Daniel Gay in civil actions 1: ll-cv-2505-WSD and 1: l1-cv
2510-WSD are DISMISSED.
?f\
SO ORDERED this _1_1_ day of October, 2011.
~~
Sf WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR.
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?