Humphrey v. Douglas County Officers / Appointed Counsel et al
Filing
11
OPINION AND ORDER that Magistrate Judge Linda T. Walker's Non-Final Report and Recommendation 7 is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Cedric Timothy Humphrey's equal protection claim against Officer Evans is ALLOWED TO PROC EED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's remaining claims are DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff copies of a USM 285 form, summons, and initial disclosures form. Plaintiff is DIRECTED to complete the USM 285 form, the summons, and the initial disclosures form and return one for Defendant to the Clerk of Court within twenty (20) days of the entry date of this Order. The Clerk is DIRECTED to resubmit this action to the undersigned if Plain tiff fails to comply. Upon receipt of the forms by the Clerk, the Clerk is DIRECTED to prepare a service waiver package for Defendant. In the event Defendant does not return the Waiver of Service form to the Clerk of Court within thirty-five (35) days following the date the service waiver package was mailed, the Clerk is DIRECTED to prepare and transmit to the USMS a service package. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 1/14/2016. (anc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
CEDRIC TIMOTHY HUMPHREY,
Plaintiff,
v.
1:15-cv-1630-WSD
DOUGLAS COUNTY OFFICERS /
APPOINTED COUNSEL,
WILLIAM GRAY, BRYAN
TOLBERT, STEVE SPROUSE,
TRENT WILSON, PATRICK
POSTON, DEPUTY HALL,
LADONNA SCHUMAKER,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Judge Linda T. Walker’s
Non-Final Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that Plaintiff
Cedric Timothy Humphrey’s (“Plaintiff”) equal protection claim against Officer
Evans be allowed to proceed and that Plaintiff’s remaining claims be dismissed
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
I.
BACKGROUND1
Plaintiff is a pre-trial detainee at the Douglas County Jail (the “Jail”) who,
pro se, seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Compl. [1]). On May 7, 2015,
Plaintiff filed his Complaint. In it, Plaintiff alleges that Douglas County police
profiled him as he drove through the county on the interstate, stopped him, and
arrested him for alleged financial fraud crimes. (Compl. at 6-7). Since his arrest,
Plaintiff has had four “first appearance hearings” in court, been denied bond, been
charged with seventeen counts of fraud and theft crimes, and received an appointed
lawyer. (Id.).
Plaintiff also alleges that it is “impossible to fight [his] criminal case and
win due to the organized corruption in Douglas County.” (Id. at 6). He contends
that the superior court judge, his lawyer, the prosecutor, and police have all
conspired, in a “premeditated” manner, to convict minorities and deny them due
process. (Id. at 6-7). As part of that alleged conspiracy, Plaintiff contends that his
lawyer pressures him to plead guilty, everyone retaliates against him for not
pleading guilty, and the superior court judge will not let him fire his lawyer. (Id.).
1
The facts are taken from the R&R and the record. The parties have not
objected to any specific facts in the R&R, and the Court finds no plain error in
them. The Court thus adopts the facts set out in the R&R. See Garvey v. Vaughn,
993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993).
2
Plaintiff next alleges that he and a white inmate at the Jail deceived officers
to get an extra food tray, and that he was punished much more severely than the
white inmate for that misconduct. (Id.).2 Plaintiff alleges Officer Evans gave him
a disciplinary report and placed him in segregation for twelve days while only
locking the white inmate in his cell for one hour without a disciplinary report.
(Id.). Plaintiff contends that Evans treated the two inmates differently based on
their race despite their engaging in “exactly the same” misconduct. (Id.).
Plaintiff’s Complaint was submitted to the Magistrate Judge for the required
frivolity review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. On June 10, 2015, the Magistrate Judge
issued her R&R. In it, she determined that Plaintiff’s challenge to his pending
state criminal case and the officials involved in that case does not present a viable
claim because the Court cannot interfere in the state criminal case. She also
determined that Plaintiff states a viable claim of racial discrimination against
Officer Evans.
2
Plaintiff does not explicitly allege that he is black. The Magistrate Judge
determined that a liberal construction of Plaintiff’s Complaint indicates that he is
not white. Plaintiff later filed a letter [10] in this action in which he claims he
submitted a grievance against Officer Evans “for discrimination from white to
black inmates,” which suggests that Plaintiff is black. The Court proceeds under
the assumption that Plaintiff is black.
3
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) (per curiam). 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). Where, as here, no party has objected to the report and
recommendation, a court conducts only a plain error review of the record. United
States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam).
B.
Analysis
Federal courts must screen prisoner complaints to determine whether 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Courts may dismiss a complaint if the alleged facts do
not state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Edwards v. Prime, Inc., 602
F.3d 1276, 1291 (11th Cir. 2010). To state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) an act or omission deprived him of a right,
4
privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or a statute of the United States;
and (2) the deprivation occurred under color of state law. Richardson v. Johnson,
598 F.3d 734, 737 (11th Cir. 2010).
The Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff’s challenge to his pending
state criminal case and the officials involved in that case does not present a viable
claim because the Court cannot interfere in the state court case. The Court agrees.
See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971); see also Hughes v. Att’y Gen. of Fla.,
377 F.3d 1258, 1262 (11th Cir. 2004). The Court is required to abstain from a
state court proceeding when (1) the proceedings constitute an ongoing state judicial
proceeding, (2) the proceedings implicate important state interests, and (3) there is
an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges.
Turner v. Broward Sheriff’s Office, 542 F. App’x 764, 766 (11th Cir. 2013) (citing
31 Foster Children v. Bush, 329 F.3d 1255, 1275-82 (11th Cir. 2003)). The
Magistrate Judge determined that all of the Younger factors requiring abstention
are present here, and thus recommends dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims challenging
his pending state criminal case and against the officials involved in that case. The
Court finds no plain error in these findings and recommendation.
The Magistrate Judge also determined that Plaintiff states a viable claim of
racial discrimination. The Court agrees. “To establish a claim under the Equal
5
Protection Clause, a prisoner can allege that ‘(1) he is similarly situated with other
prisoners who received more favorable treatment; and (2) his discriminatory
treatment was based on some constitutionally protected interest such as race.’”
Smith v. Reg’l Dir. of Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 368 F. App’x 9, 12 (11th Cir. 2010)
(quoting Jones v. Ray, 279 F.3d 944, 946-47 (11th Cir. 2001)). “Where the
protected interest is race, strict scrutiny applies.” Id. The Magistrate Judge
recommends that Plaintiff’s equal protection claim against Officer Evans be
allowed to proceed. The Court finds no plain error in these findings and
recommendation.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Linda T. Walker’s
Non-Final Report and Recommendation [7] is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Cedric Timothy Humphrey’s
(“Plaintiff”) equal protection claim against Officer Evans is ALLOWED TO
PROCEED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s remaining claims are
DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
6
The Clerk is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff copies of a USM 285 form,
summons, and initial disclosures form. Plaintiff is DIRECTED to complete the
USM 285 form, the summons, and the initial disclosures form and return one for
Defendant to the Clerk of Court within twenty (20) days of the entry date of this
Order. The Clerk is DIRECTED to resubmit this action to the undersigned if
Plaintiff fails to comply. Plaintiff is warned that if he fails to provide accurate
address information to the Clerk of Court for Defendant or fails to return the forms
to the Clerk of Court within twenty (20) days of the entry date of this Order, this
action may be dismissed for failure to obey a lawful order of the Court. See
LR 41.3 A.(2), N.D. Ga.
Upon receipt of the forms by the Clerk, the Clerk is DIRECTED to prepare
a service waiver package for Defendant. The service waiver package must include,
two (2) Notices of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons
(prepared by the Clerk), two (2) Waiver of Service of Summons forms
(prepared by the Clerk), an envelope addressed to the Clerk of Court with adequate
first class postage for use by Defendant for return of the waiver form, one (1) copy
of the Complaint, one (1) copy of the initial disclosures form, and one (1) copy of
this Order. The Clerk shall retain the USM 285 forms and the summons.
7
Upon completion of the service waiver package, the Clerk is DIRECTED to
complete the lower portion of the Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver form
and to mail the service waiver package to Defendant. Defendant has a duty to
avoid unnecessary costs of serving the summons. If Defendant fails to comply
with the request for waiver of service, the Defendant must bear the costs of
personal service unless good cause can be shown for failure to return the Waiver of
Service form.
In the event Defendant does not return the Waiver of Service form to the
Clerk of Court within thirty-five (35) days following the date the service waiver
package was mailed, the Clerk is DIRECTED to prepare and transmit to the
USMS a service package. The service package must include the USM 285 form,
the summons, and one (1) copy of the Complaint. Upon receipt of the service
package, the USMS is DIRECTED to personally serve Defendant. The executed
waiver form or the completed USM 285 form shall be filed with the Clerk.
8
SO ORDERED this 14th day of January, 2016.
9
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?