Adams v. State of Vermont et al

Filing 7

OPINION AND ORDER Adopting 3 the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and Dismissing 4 Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), the court DENIES Pe titioner a certificate of appealability in this matter because Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Signed by Judge Christina Reiss on 2/27/2018. (pac) Filing date corrected on 2/28/2018 (jlh).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF VERMONT
BAHJI ADAMS,
Petitioner,
V.

STATE OF VERMONT and STATE OF
GEORGIA,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:l 7-cv-114

OPINION AND ORDER
ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND DISMISSING PETITIONER'S PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
(Docs. 3 & 4)
This matter came before the court for a review of the Magistrate Judge's
September 14, 2017 Report and Recommendation ("R & R") (Doc. 3), in which the
Magistrate Judge recommended that the court dismiss self-represented Petitioner Bahji
Adams's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 4). On
September 27, 2017, Petitioner filed an objection to the R & R, contending that the
R & R should be vacated. In her forty-three page objection, she makes a number of
arguments that may be distilled as follows: (1) the Magistrate Judge lacked jurisdiction to
adjudicate her habeas corpus petition because she did not consent; (2) she does not need
to be in custody in order for the court to proceed on her petition because her incarceration
for non-payment of child support is capable of repetition; and (3) her constitutional rights
and her rights under an array of federal statutes have been infringed and will continue to
be infringed as long as she is compelled to pay child support whiGh she cannot afford.

I.

Factual and Procedural Background.
On or about September 14, 2017, Petitioner filed a Petition for writ of habeas

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging she was arrested and confined for criminal

contempt of court on October 27-29, 2015 and July 1-5, 2016. She asserts the charge of
criminal contempt was vacated March 23, 2016 and arose out of her failure to appear in a
Vermont Superior Court, Family Division hearing after she allegedly requested to appear
via telephone and was not afforded this accommodation. She contends her request was
"supported by medical professionals." (Doc. 4 at 2.) She has appealed her incarceration
to the Vermont Supreme Court. She also appears to concede she has raised her claims
previously under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging these claims were disposed ofas follows:
Federal District Court, Vermont District before Judge Sessions, (D.Vt.
2015) and Judge Murtha (D.Vt2016) 1:15-cv-228-jgm. No hearing where
evidence was submitted was allowed. Results, both dismissed without
prejudice, and with prejudice against the State of Vermont. ... Appeals for
both cases filed with the [S]econd [C]ircuit and filed in the Supreme Court
of the United States, with sending back with correction and refiling
available within 60 days.

Id. at 4-5, ,i,i 15-16. She describes the facts supporting her claims in paragraph seventeen
of her Petition as consisting of an inability to obtain access to Office of Child Support
programs because of a range of disabilities resulting in "unlawful restraining and
unlawful detention of [her] right to medical-care and self-governing of her medical care
and implementation, and the failure of [the] judicial body to recognize her medicalrights[ .]" Id. at 5-6, ,i 17. She seeks "recognition of her right to medical-care and
manage[ment] of her medical-modalities, her right to medical-autonomy[,]" and a
permanent injunction granting her access to Office of Child Support Programs, as well as
expungement and sealing of the records related to her arrest and incarceration. Id. at 12.

II.

Conclusions of Law and Analysis.
A.

Standard of Review.

A district judge must make a de novo determination of those portions of a
magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which an objection is made. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l); Cullen v. United States, 194 F.3d 401,405 (2d Cir.
1999). The district judge 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 )(1 ); accord

Cullen, 194 F.3d at 405. A district judge, however, is not required to review the factual
2

or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of a reports and
recommendation to which no objections are addressed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,
150 (1985).
As the Magistrate Judge noted, Petitioner's claims all arise out of events that
occurred in Georgia and are now apparently having consequences for Petitioner in
Vermont. Petitioner has the right to address her concerns in the Vermont Superior Court
and has apparently done so. She asserts no viable federal cause of action and, as the
Magistrate Judge properly noted, federal court have limited jurisdiction and may not
proceed to adjudicate cases for which they lack subject matter jurisdiction regardless of a
petitioner's self-represented status and notwithstanding compelling facts. The court
agrees with his explanation of the reasons why this court lacks jurisdiction over
Petitioner's petition.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's R & R (Doc.
3), and DISMISSES Petitioner's § 2254 motion (Doc. 4).
Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(l) and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), the court
DENIES Petitioner a certificate of appealability in this matter because Petitioner has
failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
SO ORDERED.
Dated at Burlington, in the District of Vermont, this

J...7

A

day of February, 2018.

~

Christina Reiss, District Judge
United States District Court

3