Jones v. Kelly, et al

Filing 29

FINAL JUDGMENT ADOPTING 21 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; OVERRULING 28 Objection filed by La Tidtus Jones; cause is dismissed with prejudice counting as a "strike". CASE CLOSED. Signed by District Judge Michael P. Mills on 8/27/2014. (dlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
OXFORD DIVISION
LA TIDTUS JONES

PLAINTIFF

v.

No. 2:12CV125-MPM-DAS

MARYLYN L. KELLY, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

FINAL JUDGMENT
Having considered the file and records in this action, including the Report and Recommendation of the
United States Magistrate Judge and the objections to the Report and Recommendation, the court finds that the
plaintiff’s objections are without merit and that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation should be
approved and adopted as the opinion of the court.
Equal Protection
In his objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the plaintiff, for the first time
that the court can discern, raised a claim of equal protection – laiming that he, as a black federal probationer, was
not granted the same right of access to the courts as probationers of a different race. This argument is without
merit. Put simply, the equal protection clause directs states to treat all similarly situated persons alike. City of
Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 439, 105 S.Ct. 3249, 3254, 87 L.Ed.2d 313 (1985). A state
government can violate the Equal Protection Clause only by intentional discrimination. Lavernia v. Lynaugh, 845
F.2d 493, 496 (5th Cir.1988). ADiscriminatory purpose . . . implies more than intent as violation or as awareness of
consequences[.] . . .

It implies that the decisionmaker singled out a particular group for disparate treatment and

selected his course of action at least in part for the purpose of causing its adverse effect on an identifiable group[.]@ Id.
(internal quotations, citations, and footnote omitted) (emphasis in opinion). A violation of the equal protection clause
can occur only when the governmental action in question classifies or distinguishes between two or more relevant
persons or groups. Brennan v. Stewart, 834 F.2d 1248, 1257 (5th Cir.1988).
La Tidtus Jones’ equal protection claim must fail, as he has not identified Atwo or more relevant persons or
groups@ which the government has classified and treated differently B and to the plaintiff=s detriment. Vera v. Tue, 73
F.3d 604, 609-10 (5th Cir. 1996). Jones, who claims that he was denied access to the Clerk’s Office because he was a

black federal probationer, has not identified a similarly situated federal probationer of another race who has given
access to the Clerk’s Office. For this reason, the plaintiff=s Equal Protection Claim fails to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted.
It is ORDERED:
1.

That the plaintiff’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation are

OVERRULED;
2.

That the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge is hereby

APPROVED AND ADOPTED as the opinion of the court; and
3.

That the instant case is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which

relief could be granted, counting as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 (e)(2)(B)(i) and 1915(g).
SO ORDERED, this, the 27th day of August, 2014.

/s/ MICHAEL P. MILLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI