Blocker v. State of Georgia
Filing
8
OPINION and ORDER adopting the Magistrate Judge's 6 Final Report and Recommendation. Petitioner's Petition is DISMISSED and a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 10/10/2014. (dfb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
DUANE E. BLOCKER, SR.,
Petitioner,
v.
1:14-cv-223-WSD
STATE OF GEORGIA,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge E. Clayton Scofield III’s
Final Report and Recommendation [6] (“R&R”).
I.
BACKGROUND
On January 27, 2014, Petitioner Duane E. Blocker, Sr. (“Petitioner”) filed
his “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(1)(2)(5)” [1]
(the “Petition”). The Petition consists of sixty pages of factual assertions and legal
argument, and eighty pages of exhibits, concerning an alleged violation of
Petitioner’s “rights to due process, equal protection of the law, and liberty interest
in freedom from arbitrary restraint protected under the First, Fourth, Sixth,
Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.”
(Petition at 10).
Petitioner alleges that City of Atlanta police officers and others have sought
to unlawfully restrict his and others’ ability to play chess and smoke cigarettes in
Woodruff Park. (Id. at 2). Petitioner alleges that a series of events during an
altercation with a Woodruff park official lead to his arrest for simple battery, based
upon the false report of the crime by the park attendant. (Id. at 5-7). Petitioner
requests that the Court declare his arrest warrant void and dismiss his state court
prosecution or acquit him of the charges based upon lack of probable cause and
subject matter jurisdiction. (Id. at 57).
On April 15, 2014, the Magistrate Judge noted the federal court’s
“fundamental policy against federal interference with state criminal
[prosecutions.]” (R&R at 2) (quoting Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 46 (1971)).
The Magistrate Judge noted that Petitioner was not entitled to relief, and
recommended that the Court dismiss the Petition. (R&R at 3) (citing Rules 1(b)
and 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts) (the “Rules”). The Magistrate Judge recommended that no certificate of
appealability (“COA”) should be issued. (R&R at 3). Petitioner did not file any
objections to the R&R.
2
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, 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 district judge
must conduct a plain error review of the record. United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d
1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983).
B.
Analysis
As Petitioner has not objected to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R, the Court
reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations for plain error. See
Slay 714 F.2d at 1095.
The Supreme Court, in Younger v. Harris, established that federal courts
“should not act, and particularly should not act to restrain a criminal prosecution,
when the moving party has an adequate remedy at law and will not suffer
3
irreparable injury if denied equitable relief.” Younger, 401 U.S. at 44-45.
Constitutional claims must, instead, be raised in the ongoing state proceeding
“‘unless it plainly appears that this course would not afford adequate protection.’”
Id. at 45 (quoting Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U.S. 240, 243-44 (1926)).
To the extent that Petitioner raises a federal constitutional claim, the
Magistrate Judge concluded that Petitioner’s claims were capable of being
addressed in state court, and that none of his concerns warranted immediate federal
intervention in his state court prosecution. (R&R at 2). The Magistrate Judge
recommended dismissing the Petition pursuant to Rule 4, which provides that if “it
plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not
entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition . . . .” See
Rule 4.1 The Court finds no plain error in these findings. See Slay, 714 F.2d at
1095.
“A certificate of appealability may issue . . . only if the applicant has made a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2).
When a district court has denied a habeas petition on procedural grounds without
reaching the merits of the underlying constitutional claim, the petitioner must show
that (1) “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was
1
The “Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts” apply to Petitioner’s § 2241 Petition. See Rule 1(b).
4
correct in its procedural ruling,” and that (2) “jurists of reason would find it
debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional
right.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. at 484 (2000).
The Magistrate Judge recommended that a COA not be issued, finding that
Petitioner failed to meet the standard set forth in Slack. It is not debatable that the
Younger doctrine bars the Court from adjudicating Petitioner’s claims at this time.
See Younger, 401 U.S. at 44-45. The Court finds no plain error in the Magistrate
Judge’s determination that a COA should not be issued. See Slay, 714 F.2d at
1095.
5
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge E. Clayton Scofield
III’s Final Report and Recommendation [6] is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition [1] is
DISMISSED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is
DENIED.
SO ORDERED this 10th day of October, 2014.
6
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?