Jackson v. Stoke et al

Filing 29

ORDER ADOPTING 23 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge in part, to the extent that it recommends that Jackson's 16 , 19 Motions for Default Judgement are denied. The Court declines to adopt the Report and Recommendation, in par t, as moot, to the extent that it recommends that Jackson's original Complaint be dismissed. Since Jackson's Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief, his 27 Amended Complaint is dismissed. All pending 9 , 10 , 20 , 21 , and 26 motions are dismissed as moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal and to close this case. Signed by District Judge R. Stan Baker on 7/28/2022. (ca) Modified on 7/29/2022 (JH).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
RAHEEM DASHEEN JACKSON,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 4:21-cv-348

v.
TAMMY STOKE, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s May 23, 2022, Report and Recommendation
recommending that pro se plaintiff Raheem DaSheen Jackson’s Complaint be dismissed. (Doc.
23.) Jackson filed objections, (doc. 24), and submitted a proposed Amended Complaint, (doc.
27).

Since, as discussed below, Jackson’s Amended Complaint supersedes his original

Complaint, the Magistrate Judge’s analysis of the original Complaint is moot. Accordingly, the
Court DECLINES TO ADOPT, in part, the Report and Recommendation. 1 See, e.g., 28 U.S.C.
§ 636 (b)(1) (“A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
and recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”) However, as explained more fully below,
Jackson’s Objection, (doc. 24), to the Report and Recommendation is also mooted by his Amended Complaint.
The Court notes, however, that the Objection fails to identify any defect in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. Jackson’s
original Complaint sought “seventy million,” in damages based on his allegation that Chatham County Recorder’s
Court Judge Tammy Stokes violated his rights. (See doc. 1, pp. 5-6; see also doc. 23, p. 1.) Despite his Complaint’s
clear request for damages, Jackson’s Objection states that he is “suing Judge Tammy Stokes for [i]njunctive relief, in
her official capacity, for violating [his] constitutional rights.” (Doc. 24, p. 1.) Despite that characterization, and the
complete lack of any injunctive relief specified in the Objection, he concludes by “pray[ing for] judgment in his favor
for [i]njunctive relief and damages in his favor against all defendants in an amount sufficient to compensate [him] for
pain and mental anguish suffered by him due to the deliberate indifference and intentional misconduct of defendant’s
[sic] but in no event less than $9,999,000 . . . .” (Id., p. 5.) Jackson’s Objection is also silent as to the Magistrate
Judge’s determination that the original Complaint does not “even hint at how . . . the Mayor and City Manager of
Savannah, Georgia are implicated in his prosecution.” (Doc. 23, p. 6; see also doc. 24.) Since those defendants are
omitted from Jackson’s Amended Complaint, (see generally doc. 27), the Court infers his concession that he stated no
claim against either of them.
1

Jackson’s Amended Complaint, (doc. 27), fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted
and seeks monetary relief from an individual who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b). It is, therefore, DISMISSED. Jackson did not object to the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation that his motions for default judgment be denied. 2 (See doc. 23 at 8-10; see also
doc. 24.) Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation,
in part. (Doc. 23.) Jackson’s Motions for Default Judgement are DENIED. (Docs. 16 & 19.)
Jackson has submitted a “Second Amended Complaint,” which appears to be a first
Amended Complaint. As he has not amended his Complaint before, Jackson is permitted to
amend as a matter of right. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1); see also, e.g., Shaw v. Allen, 701 F.
App’x 891, 894 (11th Cir. 2017) (“We have held that the district court lacks the discretion to deny
an amendment as futile when the party has the right to amend as a matter of course under Rule
15(a)(1).”) “An amended pleading supersedes the former pleading; the original pleading is
abandoned by the amendment, and is no longer part of the pleader’s averments against his
adversary.” Dresdner Bank AG, Dresdner Bank AG in Hamburg v. M/V Olympia Voyager, 463
F.3d 1210, 1215 (11th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Despite the
amendment, however, Jackson still seeks monetary relief from an immune defendant and Younger
abstention prevents the Court from hearing any claim concerning the propriety of the proceedings
in his ongoing state criminal case.
Jackson’s Amended Complaint alleges that Judge Stokes violated his constitutional rights
by concluding that he had waived his right to a preliminary hearing and committing him to custody,
apparently of the Chatham County Sheriff. (See doc. 27, p. 1.) He contends that, although a

Jackson’s Objection is not signed. (See doc. 24 at 5.) The Clerk notified him of the defect, (doc. 25), and he took
no action to correct it. Because Jackson’s Amended Complaint renders his objections to the analysis of his original
Complaint moot, and he does not object to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation concerning his Motions for Default
Judgment, the defect in his Objection is moot.
2

2

preliminary hearing is not guaranteed by the United States Constitution, the denial of a state
statutory right deprived him of liberty and violated his due process and equal protection rights.
(Id.) He also contends that he is “not asking the courts to interfer[e] with the on going criminal
prosecution,” but is seeking unspecified injunctive relief against Judge Stokes, “in her official
capacity,” for those alleged violations. (Id., p. 2.) Despite his talismanic assertion that he seeks
“injunctive relief,” he requests “judgment in his favor . . . in an amount sufficient to compensate
him for pain and mental anguish suffered by him . . . but in no event less than $9,999,000 . . . .”
(Id.)
Despite Jackson’s attempts to alter the language of his original Complaint, it is clear that
his Amended Complaint is substantially identical. The principal relief he seeks is a judgment for
monetary damages against Judge Stokes.

As the Magistrate Judge previously explained,

however, “[j]udges, including Recorder’s Court judges, are generally immune from suit unless
they act in the ‘clear absence of all jurisdiction.’” (Doc. 23, p. 5 (quoting Stump v. Sparkman,
435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978)).) As the Magistrate Judge also explained, judicial immunity
“extends to all claims, whether for damages or for injunctive relief.” (Id. (citing Bolin v. Story,
225 F.3d 1234, 1239-42 (11th Cir. 2000); McMillian v. City of Rockmart, 653 F.2d 907, 910 (5th
Cir. 1981) (“[T]he judge of the recorder’s court [has] absolute immunity for [his] official acts.”)).)
Judge Stokes, therefore, enjoys the same immunity against the claims Jackson asserts in his
Amended Complaint as she enjoyed against the claims asserted in his original Complaint. His
Amended Complaint is, therefore, DISMISSED. 3
In summary, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, in
part, to the extent that it recommends that Jackson’s Motions for Default Judgment be denied.
The Court takes Jackson at his word that he is not seeking any relief that would interfere in his ongoing prosecution
in a state court. (See doc. 24, p. 2.) To the extent that his requests for “injunctive relief” are entirely unspecified,

3

3

(Doc. 23.) Those motions are, therefore, DENIED. (Docs. 16 & 19.) The Court DECLINES
TO ADOPT the Report and Recommendation, in part, as moot, to the extent that it recommends
that Jackson’s original Complaint be dismissed.

(Doc. 23.)

Since Jackson’s Amended

Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and seeks monetary relief from
a defendant who is immune from such relief, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, his Amended Complaint is
DISMISSED, (doc. 27). All pending motions are, therefore, DISMISSED as moot. (Docs. 8,
9, 10, 20, 21 & 26). The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter the appropriate judgment of
dismissal and to CLOSE this case.
SO ORDERED, this 28th day of July, 2022.

R. STAN BAKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

however, the Court notes that if the injunctive relief sought would implicate that prosecution, the Court would be
required to abstain from hearing any such claim, pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). As the
Magistrate Judge explained, Jackson remains free to assert any constitutional or procedural defect in his state criminal
proceedings. (Doc. 23, pp. 7-8 (citing Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 n. 8 (1994)(“[I]f a state criminal
defendant brings a federal civil-rights lawsuit during the pendency of his criminal trial, appeal, or state habeas action,
abstention may be an appropriate response to the parallel state-court proceedings.”).)

4