Brinson v. Boggs

Filing 8

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS recommending 1 Complaint filed by Keith Brinson be DISMISSED. Objections to R&R due by 12/29/2008. Signed by Magistrate Judge James E. Graham on 12/8/08. (en)

L

FL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA WAYCROSS DIVISION 2008 DEC 9 AM 8:59 Plaintiff, V. CIVIL ACTION NO.: CV508-062

KEITH BRINSON,

SOt IS TOFGA

Judge MICHAEL P. BOGGS, Defend ant. MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff, an inmate currently confined at the Coffee County Jail in Douglas, Georgia, has filed an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A prisoner proceeding in
forma pauperis in a civil action against officers or employees of government entities

must comply with the mandates of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 & 1915A. In determining compliance, the court shall be guided by the longstanding principle that pro se pleadings are entitled to liberal construction. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Walker v. Du gg er, 860 F.2d 1010, 1011 (11th Cir. 1988). 28 U.S.C. § 1915A requires a district court to screen the complaint for cognizable claims before or as soon as possible after docketing. The court must dismiss the complaint or any portion of the complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary damages from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and (2). In Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997), the Eleventh Circuit interpreted the language contained in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), which is nearly

AU 72A (Rev. 8/82)

identical to that contained in the screening provisions at § 1915A(b). As the language of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) closely tracks the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the court held that the same standards for determining whether to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) should be applied to prisoner complaints filed pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Mitchell, 112 F.3d at 1490. The Court may dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim only where it appears beyond a doubt that a pro so litigant can prove no set of facts that would entitle him to relief. Hu g hes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 10 (1980); Mitchell, 112 F.3d at 1490. While the court in Mitchell interpreted § 1915(e), its interpretation guides this Court in applying the identical language of § 1915A. Plaintiff alleges that he has no way to complain about wrongdoing. Plaintiff contends that Defendant Michael P. Boggs, a Superior Court Judge in the Waycross Judicial Circuit, has a personal issue with him and asserts that "its [sic] wrong and harsh the way he done me." (Doc. No. 1, p. 5). Congress did not abrogate the doctrine of judicial immunity when it enacted § 1983. Judicial immunity is an absolute immunity, and it applies even when a judge acts maliciously. Stum p v. S p arkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356 (1978) (holding judicial immunity doctrine applies in § 1983 actions); Harris v. Deveaux, 780 F.2d 911, 914 (11th Cii. 1986). Absolute immunity not only protects against liability but also against a case going to trial at all. Harris, 780 F.2d at 914 (citing Mitchell v. Fors yth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985)). To determine whether a judge is entitled to absolute immunity from money damages under section 1983, a two-part test was established in Stum p : 1) whether the judge dealt with the plaintiff in a judicial capacity; and 2) whether the judge acted in the

A072A (Rev. 8/82)

II

2

"clear absence of all jurisdiction." Id. (quoting Stum p , 435 U.S. at 357). The second prong of this test is "only satisfied if a judge completely lacks subject matter jurisdiction." ] at 916. Plaintiff fails to make any allegations which would indicate that Judge Boggs acted in the clear absence of jurisdiction. Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot sustain his claims against Judge Boggs. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, it is my RECOMMENDATION that Plaintiff's Complaint be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. SO REPORTED and RECOMMENDED, this day of December, 2008.

\MES E. GRAHAM NITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

A072A (Rev. 8/82)

II

3