Wilson v. Gilmore et al

Filing 11

Memorandum Opinion and Order. This Court does not have jurisdiction to review, modify, or nullify an order of the state courts. Consequently, Plaintiff's cause of action will be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on July 29, 2103.(lda)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
BOBBY EARL WILSON, JR.

PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

CAUSE NO. 5:13-cv-50-DCB-MTP

DEBRA GILMORE, ELLIOTT BEAUCHAMP
and JACQUELINE BANKS

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This cause is before the Court, sua sponte, for consideration of dismissal. Plaintiff Wilson,
an inmate currently incarcerated in the Mississippi State Penitentiary, Parchman, Mississippi,
filed this complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 2, 2013. The named defendants are
Debra Gilmore, Elliott Beauchamp and Jacqueline Banks. As relief, Plaintiff is requesting
monetary damages.
Plaintiff complains that Defendant Gilmore removed his personal property from his cell
while he was not present. Pl.’s Compl. [1] p. 5. Defendant Gilmore issued “an allowable
personal property inventory/receipt listing all of Plaintiff’s property.” Id. When Plaintiff was
released from segregated housing, the prison officials could not locate Plaintiff’s property. Id.
Plaintiff then filed a request for administrative remedies. Id. at p. 6. Plaintiff’s request was
denied. Id. On October 23, 2010, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Wilkinson
County seeking a writ of replevin for his property. Id. The Circuit Court of Wilkinson County
denied Plaintiff’s complaint. Id. at p. 7. Plaintiff appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court and
the appeal was dismissed on December 6, 2012, for Plaintiff’s failure to pay the costs of the
appeal. Id. Plaintiff now files the instant civil action arguing that he has been deprived of his
personal property in violation of his due process rights. Id. at p. 8.
Analysis

The Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (as amended), applies to
prisoner proceedings in forma pauperis and provides that “the court shall dismiss the case at any
time if the court determines that . . .(B) the action or appeal -- (i) is frivolous1 or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief.” Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, was granted in forma
pauperis status and is subject to sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Plaintiff is challenging the state court orders and judgments he received from the Circuit
Court of Wilkinson County as well as the Mississippi Supreme Court. See Pl.’s Compl. [1] and
Mem. in Supp. [3]. Plaintiff may not “couch” his complaint as a civil action arguing that his
constitutional rights have been violated when in fact Plaintiff is simply attacking the judgment of
a state court. See Randolph v. Texaco, Inc., 471 F. App’x 416, 417 (5th Cir. 2012)(affirming the
dismissal for failure to state a claim and as frivolous of a § 1983 civil action challenging a
worker’s compensation claim after Plaintiff received an adverse judgment in state court). As the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has explained, “[t]he Supreme Court has
definitively established, in what has become known as the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, that
‘federal district courts, as courts of original jurisdiction, lack appellate jurisdiction to review,
modify, or nullify final orders of state courts.’” Weekly v. Morrow, 204 F.3d 613, 615 (5th Cir.
2000)(citing Liedtke v. State Bar of Texas, 18 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir.1994))(citations omitted).2
“[L]itigants may not obtain review of state court actions by filing complaints about those actions

1

A case that is found to be legally frivolous is one that seeks to assert a “right” or address
a “wrong” clearly not recognized by federal law. See, e.g., Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989).
2

Referencing Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) and District of Columbia
Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).
2

in lower federal courts cast in the form of civil rights suits.” Hale v. Harney, 786 F.2d 688, 691
(5th Cir. 1986); Liedtke, 18 F.3d at 317; United States v. Shepherd, 23 F.3d 923, 924 (5th Cir.
1994). Based on the foregoing reasons, this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the
Plaintiff’s cause of action and to grant the requested relief in this action.
Conclusion
As discussed above, the Court does not have jurisdiction to review, modify, or nullify an
order of the state courts. Consequently, Plaintiff’s cause of action will be dismissed with
prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. See Randolph, 471 F. App’x 416 (5th Cir.
June 28, 2012).
A Final Judgment in accordance with this Memorandum Opinion and Order will be
entered.
SO ORDERED, this the 29th

day of July, 2013.

s/David Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3