Maxwell v. State of Oklahoma
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 4 Report and Recommendation, this action is dismissed, as more fully set out. Signed by Honorable David L. Russell on 2/9/18. (jw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JASON E. MAXWELL,
STATE OF OKLAHOMA, et al ,
Case No. CIV-18-50-R
Plaintiff filed this action asserting violation of his constitutional rights, alleging
therein that he has been held for nearly two years without a trial in Muskogee, Oklahoma.
He requested that the Court hear his writ and grant his action, although he did not specify
the relief sought. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), the matter was referred to
United States Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell for preliminary review. On Jan 26, 2018,
Judge Mitchell issued a Report and Recommendation recommending, based on screening
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, that the action be dismissed upon filing because Plaintiff failed
to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. (Doc. No. 4) Judge Mitchell further
noted that to the extent Mr. Maxwell sought dismissal of the State’s pending criminal
charges, his claim must be filed as an action for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. §
2241, and that the Eastern District of Oklahoma is the proper jurisdiction for such a
proceeding because Mr. Maxwell is detained within that District. The matter is currently
before the Court on Plaintiff’s timely objection to the Report and Recommendation (Doc.
No. 9), which gives rise to the Court’s obligation to conduct a de novo review of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which Plaintiff makes specific objection.
Having conducted this review, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and
DISMISSES this action.
Plaintiff’s objection specifies that he is seeking relief for violation of his right to a
speedy trial. He does not indicate what relief he seeks but cited to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in his
initial filing. “To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right
secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged
deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.” West v. Atkins,
487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Northington v. Jackson, 973 F.2d 1518, 1523 (10th Cir. 1992).
The only Defendant named in this civil action is the State of Oklahoma. The State,
however, is not a “person” that can be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Will v. Mich. Dept. of
State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64 (1989). Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a claim on this
basis as well. Finally, to the extent Plaintiff seeks dismissal of the charges, Judge Mitchell
correctly concluded that he must file a petition seeking habeas corpus relief in the Eastern
District of Oklahoma, as set forth in the Report and Recommendation.
For the reasons set forth herein, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and
this action is hereby DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of February 2018.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?