Greaves v. Mann

Filing 8

OPINION AND ORDER adopting Magistrate Judge Justin S. Anands Final Report and Recommendation 6 and dismissing Petitioners Section 2241 Petition 4 . Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 2/7/17. (ddm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
ANDRE LEON GREAVES,
Petitioner,
v.

1:16-cv-3090-WSD

JEFFREY MANN,
Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Justin S. Anand’s Final
Report and Recommendation [6] (“R&R”). The R&R recommends the Court
dismiss Petitioner Andre Leon Graves’s (“Petitioner”) amended petition for writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [4] (“Section 2241 Petition”).
I.

BACKGROUND1
On August 22, 2016, Petitioner, a pre-trial detainee at the DeKalb County

Jail in Decatur, Georgia, submitted his pro se habeas petition [1]. Petitioner
referred to several phrases such as “contract law,” “commercial charges,” “legal

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).

corporate name,” and argued that Georgia does not have jurisdiction over his
criminal proceedings. ([1], [2]). On September 8, 2016, the Magistrate Judge
issued an order [3] in which he noted that Petitioner recently had raised a similar
argument in a previous case purported to fall under this Court’s diversity
jurisdiction, see Greaves v. Hunter, No. 1:15-CV-4365-WSD, which was
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ([3]). The Magistrate Judge also
noted that the Court would not construe Petitioner’s diversity action as a habeas
corpus petition because Petitioner had not demonstrated that he had exhausted his
state court remedies. (Id. at 2, n.2); see also Greaves, No. 1:15-CV-4365-WSD at
Docket No. 2. Finally, the undersigned noted that the petition contained
nonsensical and frivolous allegations associated with sovereign citizen ideology
that is not recognized by the courts, but, due to the confusing nature of those
allegations, the Magistrate Judge allowed Petitioner the opportunity to amend the
petition, with specific instructions to state facts demonstrating why he claims his
detention is unconstitutional without reference to sovereign citizen theory. ([3] at
2-3).
On October 11, 2016, Petitioner filed his amended petition, essentially
claiming that the criminal charges against him are not valid, and that Georgia does
not have subject matter jurisdiction over him in the criminal proceedings against

2

him. ([4]). Petitioner seeks dismissal of the charges against him and to be released
from custody. (Id.).
On November 17, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued his R&R. The
Magistrate Judge found that the Court is prohibited from intervening in Petitioner’s
state court criminal proceedings under the doctrine of abstention articulated by the
United States Supreme Court in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Petitioner
did not file any objections to the R&R.
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, the Court conducts only a plain error review of the record.
United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam).

3

B.

Analysis

The Magistrate Judge found that the Court is prohibited from intervening in
Petitioner’s state court criminal proceedings under the doctrine of abstention
articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37
(1971). The Younger abstention doctrine requires a federal court in certain
circumstances to abstain from interfering with ongoing state court proceedings. 31
Foster Children v. Bush, 329 F.3d 1255, 1274 (11th Cir. 2003). Under Younger,
“abstention is required 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) (per curiam). The Magistrate Judge found that the Younger abstention
doctrine prohibits the Court from addressing Petitioner’s claims, and that there are
no extraordinary circumstances that might justify intervention here. Accordingly,
the Magistrate Judge recommends the Court dismiss Petitioner’s Section 2241
Petition. The Court finds no plain error in these findings and recommendation, and
Petitioner’s Section 2241 Petition is dismissed. See Slay, 714 F.2d at 1095.

4

III.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Justin S. Anand’s Final

Report and Recommendation [6] is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Section 2241 Petition [4] is
DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED this 7th day of February, 2017.

5