Prescott v. State of Georgia

Filing 6

ORDER AND OPINION OVERRULING Plaintiff's 5 Objections and ADOPTING 3 Final Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Judge Orinda D. Evans on 7/24/2017. (sap)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT C UR1'Ul 2 ~ 2017
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF G
~Qlll
1
ATLANTA DIVISION
~J-lT@b

i-•=-

SHAVON JABBAR PRESCOTT,
GDC ID# 1144810,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO.
1: 17-CV-2395-0DE

v.

STATE OF GEORGIA,
Defendant.

PRISONER CIVIL ACTION
42 u.s.c. § 1983

ORDER
This action is before the Court on the Final Report and Recommendation
("R&R") of Magistrate Judge J. Clay Fuller (Doc. 3), recommending that Plaintiffs
complaint be dismissed because the relief he seeks is available only via a habeas
corpus petition after Plaintiff has exhausted his state court remedies; and/or because
the relief he seeks is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) and its
progeny, inasmuch as Plaintiff has not shown that the convictions underlying his
claims have been reversed, expunged, declared invalid or otherwise called into
question. (R&R at 3-5). Plaintiff has filed objections. (Doc. 5 ("Objs.")).
In reviewing a Magistrate Judge's R&R, the district court "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)(l). "Parties

A072A
(Rev.8/82)

filing objections to a magistrate's report and recommendation must specifically
identify those findings objected to. Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections need
not be considered by the district court." United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353,
1361 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Marsden v. Moore, 847 F.2d 1536, 1548 (11th Cir.
1988)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Absent objection, the district court judge
"may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and
recommendations made bythemagistrate [judge]," 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), and "need
only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record" in order to
accept the recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, advisory committee note, 1983
Addition, Subdivision (b). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l) and Rule 72
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court has conducted a de nova review
of those portions of the R&R to which Plaintiff objects and has reviewed the
remainder of the R&R for plain error. See United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093,
1095 (11th Cir. 1983).
Plaintiff offers only general objections to the R&R, without directly
addressing the rationale for the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that his
complaint be dismissed. Plaintiff does state that he brought his "civil action
complaint" not only under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but also under many other sections of
2

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

Title 42 of the United States Code. (Objs. at 1-2 (listing 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983,
1985, 1986, 1988, 1992, 2000a, 2000a-1, 2000a-3, 2000a-6)). But§§ 2000a et seq.
deal with discrimination in places of public accommodation; § 1992 concerns speedy
trials for civil rights offenders; and§ 1988 concerns attorney's fees. None of these
sections provides a substantive basis for Plaintiffs claims. And, for the reasons
stated in the R&R and in the cases cited below, claims brought under the remaining
Title 42 sections in Plaintiffs list are barred here.
In short, Plaintiff may not bring habeas corpus claims - alleging that he was
wrongly convicted -

in a civil rights action, regardless of the particular provision

of Title 42 under which he brings it; nor may he obtain the relief he seeks here until
his underlying convictions have been invalidated. See, e.g., Acosta v. McNeill, 2: 13CV-309-TMH, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152943, at *9-10 (M.D. Ala. Sept. 24, 2013)
("A judgment in favor of Plaintiff in this [§ 1983] cause of action would necessarily
imply the invalidity of his conviction and/or sentence. This also applies to [his]
claims under §§

1981, 1982, 1985, and 1986." (citing McQuillion v.

Schwarzenegger, 369 F.3d 1091, 1097 n.4 (9th Cir. 2004) ("We agree with our sister
circuits that Heck applies equally to claims brought under §§ 1983, 1985 and
1986."); Lanier v. Bryant, 332 F.3d 999, 1005-06 (6th Cir. 2003) (applying Heck to
3

A072A
(Rev.8/82)

§ 1985 action); Amaker v. Weiner, 179 F .3d 48, 52 (2d Cir. 1999) ("Heck therefore
applies with respect not only to plaintiffs § 1983 claim but also to his §§ 1981,
1985(3) and 1986 claims.");Descentv. Kolitsidas, 396 F. Supp.2d 1315, 1319 (M.D.
Fla. 2005) (applying Heck bar to plaintiffs claim under section 1985 that the
defendants conspired to interfere with his criminal trial by intimidating him and
witnesses favorable to his defense)); see Acosta, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152943, at
* 10 (summarily dismissing the plaintiffs "attack on [his] conviction and/or
sentence[, which] is prohibited [because] habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for
a state prisoner who challenges the validity of the fact or duration of his
confinement"), adopted by 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152626 (M.D. Ala. Oct. 24,
2013); see also Easterling v. Henderson, 3:14-CV-064, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
30722, at *8-9 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 10, 2014) ("a state criminal defendant cannot obtain
relief from a judgment in state court by filing a civil rights action, whether under
42 U.S.C. § 1985, or otherwise; to do so would frustrate the habeas corpus
exhaustion requirements" (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973))),
adopted by 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67193 (S.D. Ohio May 15, 2014). Plaintiff's

objections (Doc. 5) are therefore OVERRULED.

4

A072A
(Rev.8/82)

Conclusion

Finding no basis for granting Plaintiffs objections and no plain error in the
remainder of the R&R, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Order and Final
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 3) as the Opinion and Order of the Court.
Plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED this ~+ day of July, 2017.

ORINDA D. EVANS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5

A072A
(Rev.8/82)