Norris v. Mason et al
Filing
57
OPINION AND ORDER granting Judge Margot Roberts' Motion to Quash 47 . Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 6/2/17. (ddm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
SAMMY NORRIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
1:16-cv-3947-WSD
REMERO MASON, individually,
VICTOR MARCUS, individually,
CURTIS JAMES, individually, and
WILLIE MOORE, individually,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Judge Margot Roberts’ (“Judge Roberts”)
Motion to Quash [47].
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Sammy Norris (“Plaintiff”) alleges that, on November 22, 2014, he
stopped at the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport to get breakfast and
to verify the cost of an airplane ticket to Alabama. (Compl. ¶¶ 16-17). As he
walked towards the dining area inside the airport, Defendant Remero Mason
(“Officer Mason”), a police officer, asked him whether he had a plane ticket.
(Compl. ¶ 20). Plaintiff replied that he was checking the price of a ticket to
Alabama and was about to buy breakfast. (Compl. ¶ 20). Officer Mason accused
Plaintiff of trespassing, and instructed Plaintiff to follow him to the Atlanta Police
Precinct located inside the airport. (Compl. ¶ 21). Plaintiff refused to accompany
Officer Mason to the precinct. (Compl. ¶ 22). Officer Mason instructed Defendant
Curtis James (“Officer James”), another police officer, to detain Plaintiff. (Compl.
¶ 22). Plaintiff explained he was lawfully on the property and started walking
towards the MARTA station entrance to leave the airport. (Compl. ¶¶ 24-25).
Officer James and Defendants Victor Marcus (“Officer Marcus”)
Willie Moore (“Officer Moore”), also police officers, attempted to seize Plaintiff.
(Compl. ¶ 26). Plaintiff initially “maneuvered away” from the officers, but
Officers Marcus, Moore and James eventually apprehended him and “forcefully
took” him to the ground. (Compl. ¶¶ 27-28). Plaintiff alleges that one of the
officers kneed him in the abdomen and handcuffed him too tightly. (Compl.
¶¶ 31-32). Plaintiff was transported to the Clayton County Detention Center,
where he lost consciousness. (Compl. ¶ 33). He was then taken to hospital, treated
for injuries, and arrested by Defendants without a warrant. (Compl. ¶¶ 33-34, 47).
Later that day, Officer James executed a Warrantless Arrest Probable Cause
Affidavit (the “Affidavit”), alleging that Plaintiff obstructed or hindered law
enforcement, in violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-10-24. ([1.1] at 31). The narrative in
the Affidavit stated that Plaintiff resisted apprehension after Officer Mason
2
“recognized [Plaintiff] trespassing on airport property.” ([1.1] at 31). The
following language appeared at the bottom of the Affidavit, under the heading
“Order:” “After having considered the sworn statement of the officer set forth
above concerning the arrest of this Defendant, I find that probable cause exists for
the continued detention of this Defendant and ORDER that he/she be committed to
this Court to be dealt with as the law directs for the offense[s] indicated above.”
([1.1] at 31). On November 23, 2014, Judge Roberts signed the Affidavit. ([1.1] at
31). She had “no further dealings” with Plaintiff after that date. ([47.1] at 2).
Plaintiff was incarcerated for twenty-one (21) days. (Compl. ¶¶ 40-42). On
March 10, 2015, Judge Linda S. Cowen, of the State Court of Clayton Judicial
Circuit, dismissed the case against Plaintiff. ([1.1] at 32).
On September 9, 2016, Plaintiff filed his Complaint [1.1] in the State Court
of Clayton County. The Complaint asserts federal claims, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
for unlawful seizure, deprivation of liberty without due process of law, and
malicious prosecution (Count 5). The Complaint also asserts state law claims for
assault and battery (Count 1), false imprisonment (Count 2), false swearing (Count
3), malicious prosecution (Count 4), punitive damages (Count 6), and attorney’s
fees (Count 7). On October 21, 2016, Defendants removed Plaintiff’s Complaint
to this Court. ([1]).
3
On May 4, 2017, Plaintiff issued a subpoena (the “Subpoena”) to
Judge Roberts, commanding her to testify at a deposition. ([48]). On
May 8, 2017, Judge Roberts filed her Motion to Quash, arguing that the Subpoena
is “unreasonable and oppressive” and should be quashed. ([47.1] at 1). Plaintiff
did not file a response and the Motion to Quash is thus deemed unopposed. See
LR 7.1(B), NDGa (Failure to file a response shall indicate that there is no
opposition to the motion.”).
II.
DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 requires a court, on timely motion, to
quash a subpoena that requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matters.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3). “It is well-settled that the mental processes of a judge are
not the proper subject of compelled testimony.” Maid of the Mist
Corp. v. Alcatraz Media, LLC, No. 1:09-cv-1543, 2009 WL 10668648, at *2
(N.D. Ga. June 30, 2009); see United States v. Morgan, 313 U.S. 409, 422 (1941)
(stating “a judge cannot be subjected to such a scrutiny” because “an examination
of a judge would be destructive of judicial responsibility”). “[J]udges are under no
obligation to divulge the reasons that motivated them in their official acts; the
mental processes employed in formulating the decision may not be probed.”
Alcatraz Media, LLC, 2009 WL 10668648, at *2; see Robinson v. Commissioner
4
of Internal Revenue, 70 F.3d 34, 38 (5th Cir. 1995) (“A judge may not be asked to
testify about his mental processes in reaching a judicial opinion.”);
Grant v. Shalala, 989 F.2d 1332, 1344 (3d Cir. 1993) (“It has long been recognized
that attempts to probe the thought and decision making processes of judges and
administrators are generally improper.”). “Courts will only consider compelling
judicial testimony in the presence of extreme and extraordinary circumstances,
such as a strong showing of bad faith or improper behavior.” Alcatraz Media,
LLC, 2009 WL 10668648, at *2.
Judge Roberts’ only involvement with Plaintiff’s case was her approval of
the Affidavit. ([47.1] at 2). Plaintiff does not identify any issue upon which he
seeks to depose Judge Roberts that is not protected from disclosure, and he does
not state any extraordinary circumstances warranting compelled judicial testimony.
Plaintiff does not oppose Judge Robert’s motion to quash the Subpoena, and the
Motion to Quash is granted.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judge Margot Roberts’ Motion to
Quash [47] is GRANTED.
5
SO ORDERED this 2nd day of June, 2017.
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?