Cook v. Hood et al
Filing
38
ORDER AND OPINION adopting 30 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker. Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed with prejudice and without issuance of service of process, and all pending motions (Dkt. Nos. 19 , 24 , 34 ) are denied. This dismissal counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B), and it is Mr. Cook's third strike. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 5/16/2018.(ssam, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Anthony Cook, # 115157
Plaintiff,
v.
Judge Robert E. Hood, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 2:17-cv-1300
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER AND OPINION
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R. & R.") of the
Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 30) recommending that Plaintiffs Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) be
summarily dismissed with prejudice and without issuance of service of process. For the reasons
set forth below, this Court adopts the R. & R. as the order of the Court.
I.
Background and Relevant Facts
Plaintiff filed this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is proceeding prose
and in forma pauperis. As detailed by the Magistrate Judge in the R. & R. , Plaintiff is one of a
group of inmates who has repeatedly filed the same or similar complaints in this district,
purporting to sue several judges 1 for "conspiracy" and "fraud" due to their adverse rulings on the
inmates' habeas petitions. The Complaint also contains a diatribe against same-sex marriage and
seeks to "remove" this case (and others) to "the State of New Jersey. "
1
On the face of the Complaint (43 pages), Plaintiff lists twenty defendants, including the following state,
federal, and/or federal appellate judges (most of whom are identified only by their last name) : Judges
Hood, Diaz, Thacker, Davis, Gregory, Duncan, Hamilton, Hendricks, West, Harwell, Austin, Wooten,
Marchant, Seymour, Hodges, Gerbel (sic), and Cain. (Dkt. No. 1at5-7). Plaintiff also sues court officials
-- Mr. Zannelli (sic) and Patricia Connors "of the 4th Circuit Court" and attorney Tara Dawn Shurling.
(Id. at 6). Throughout his Complaint, Plaintiff insults the defendant judges, describing them in derogatory
terms as crack-head idiots, knuckleheads, scorpions, flying monkeys, stinking rats, weasels, snakes,
wicked witches, potato heads, and demon dogs . (Dkt. No . 1at6-7, 11 , 13-14, 19, 22- 23 , 26-27, 32, 40).
-1-
II.
Legal Standards
a. Pro Se Pleadings
This Court liberally construes complaints filed by pro se litigants to allow the
development of a potentially meritorious case. See Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972); Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). The requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the
Court can ignore a clear failure in the pleadings to allege facts which set forth a viable federal
claim, nor can the Court assume the existence of a genuine issue of material fact where none
exists. See Weller v. Dep 't of Social Services, 901F.2d387 (4th Cir. 1990).
b. Magistrate's Report and Recommendation
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with
this Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 , 270-71 (1976). This Court is charged with
making a de nova determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which
specific objection is made. Additionally, the Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l).
Ill.
Discussion
Plaintiff purports to sue several named defendants, including the undersigned, as well as
"all other judges of the S.C. U.S. District Court in its entirety." (Dkt. No. 1 at 6.) Pursuant to
Title 28, United States Code, Section 455(b)(i), a district judge shall disqualify himself in any
proceeding if he is a party to the proceeding. However, when a litigant sues all of the judges in a
district, the rule of necessity allows a district judge to hear the case. See Glick v. Edwards, 803
F.3d 505, 509-10 (9th Cir. 2015) ("We therefore hold that the rule of necessity applies where
every judge of a tribunal would otherwise be disqualified. More pithily stated: "where all are
-2-
disqualified, none are disqualified." Ignacio , 453 F.3d at 1165 (internal quotation marks omitted)
(quoting Pilla v. Am. Bar Ass 'n, 542 F.2d 56, 59 (8th Cir.1976)). The rule of necessity thus
permits a district judge to hear a case in which he is named as a defendant where a litigant sues
all the judges of the district.").
The rule of necessity is particularly appropriate in cases like this one where the entire
Complaint is frivolous, because no reasonable outside observer would question the district
judge's impartiality in ruling on the matter. See United States v. Wiggins , No. CRIM. WDQ-090287, 2011 WL 806383, at *7 (D. Md. Mar. 1, 2011) (quoting United States v. DeTemple, 162
F.3d 279, 286- 87 (4th Cir.1998)) ("A federal judge must disqualify himself when ' his
impartiality might reasonably be questioned. ' 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). This objective standard asks
whether a ' reasonable, well-informed observer who assesses all the facts and circumstances'
would question a judge' s impartiality. '"). Plaintiff has named all the judges in this district as
defendants because he takes issue with their prior rulings, and the Fourth Circuit has ruled that
" [J]udicial rulings and ' opinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts introduced or events
occurring in the course of the current proceedings, or of prior proceedings' almost ' never
constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion,"' United States v. Brown, 636 F. App 'x
157, 160 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal citations omitted). " [R]ecusal decisions reflect not only the
need to secure public confidence through proceedings that appear impartial, but also the need to
prevent parties from too easily obtaining the disqualification of a judge, thereby potentially
manipulating the system for strategic reasons. " United States v. Mack, 455 F. App'x 323, 325
(4th Cir. 2011) (quoting Belue v. Leventhal, 640 F.3d 567, 574 (4th Cir. 2011)). Plaintiff
undoubtedly seeks to manipulate the system for strategic reasons, as he seeks to remove this case
(and other, related cases) to the State of New Jersey. For these reasons, the undersigned finds
-3-
that it is not appropriate to recuse himself from the matter and has considered the Magistrate
Judge ' s Report and Recommendation.
The Magistrate Judge explained in the R. & R. that this matter should be summarily
dismissed for several reasons, including absolute judicial and quasi-judicial immunity (Dkt. No.
30 at 8), sovereign immunity (Id. at 9), failure to state a claim (Id. at 10), the bar on collateral
attacks to convictions set forth in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994) (Id. at 12),
and general frivolity (Id. at 13). This Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the Complaint
is frivolous and fails to state a plausible claim for relief and that, as the Complaint is entirely
subject to summary dismissal on each of the enumerated grounds under 28 U.S .C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B), this dismissal should count as a strike.
Plaintiff has filed Objections to the R. & R. (Dkt. No. 35 .) However, those Objections
appear to be only a notice of appeal to the Fourth Circuit. In the absence of any specific or
coherent objections, "a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only
satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation." See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th
Cir. 2005) (internal quotation omitted). This Court finds that the Magistrate Judge has correctly
applied the controlling law to the facts of this case.
IV.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, this Court adopts the R. & R. (Dkt. No. 12) as the order of
the Court. Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed with prejudice and without issuance of service of
process, and all pending motions (Dkt. Nos. 19, 24, 34) are denied. This dismissal counts as a
strike under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B), and it is Mr. Cook' s third strike.
-4-
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
Richard Mark Gergel
United States District Court Judge
May /~ ,2018
Charleston, South Carolina
-5-
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?