Harris v. Holder
Filing
72
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: the Court OVERRULES plaintiff's objections to Magistrate Judge VanDervort's PF&R; the court ADOPTS the PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTS Defendant's 3 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Mat ter Jurisdiction, DENIES Plaintiff's 5 MOTION for Injunction Against Defendant's Removal Action, DENIES Plaintiff's 6 MOTION to Remand Case Back to Circuit Court, DENIES Plaintiff's 20 MOTION for Default Judgment, DENIES Pla intiff's 22 MOTION to Amend the Complaint, DENIES Plaintiff's 29 MOTION for Mandatory Injunction, DENIES Plaintiff's 39 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings, DENIES Plaintiff's Emergency Rule 65 41 MOTION for Preliminary I njunction, DENIES Plaintiff's 44 PETITION for Judgment as a Matter of Law, DENIES Plaintiff's 49 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings of Special Matters, DENIES Plaintiff's 51 MOTION for Injunction Ordering the Federal Bureau of Prisons to Release Plaintiff from Illegal Custody, DENIES Plaintiff's 66 MOTION for Application and Interpretation of a Federal Statute, DENIES Plaintiff's 67 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings, and DISMISSES this matter from the court's docket. The Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge David A. Faber on 10/7/2014. (cc: plaintiff, pro se and counsel of record) (mjp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
CHRISTOPHER L. HARRIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No: 1:14-11734
ERIC HOLDER,
United States Attorney General
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before this court are Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for
Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, (Doc. No. 3), as well a
number of related motions filed by plaintiff.
By Standing
Order, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate
Judge R. Clarke VanDervort for submission of findings and
recommendations regarding disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B).
Magistrate Judge VanDervort submitted to the
court his Proposed Findings and Recommendation on August 26,
2014, in which he recommended that the district court grant
defendant’s motion, deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunction
Against Defendant’s Removal Action, (Doc. No. 5), deny
Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand Case Back to Circuit Court, (Doc.
No. 6), deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, (Doc. No.
20), deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint, (Doc. No.
22), deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Mandatory Injunction, (Doc. No.
1
29), deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings,
(Doc. No. 39), deny Plaintiff’s Emergency Rule 65 Motion for
Preliminary Injunction, (Doc. No. 41), deny Plaintiff’s Petition
for Judgment as a Matter of Law, (Doc. No. 44), deny Plaintiff’s
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings of Special Matters, (Doc.
No. 49), deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunction Ordering the
Federal Bureau of Prisons to Release Plaintiff from Illegal
Custody, (Doc. No. 51), and dismiss this matter from the court’s
docket.
(Doc. No. 58).
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b),
plaintiff was allotted fourteen days, plus three mailing days,
in which to file any objections to Magistrate Judge VanDervort’s
Findings and Recommendation.
On September 2, 2014, plaintiff
timely filed objections to the PF&R.
For the reasons that
follow, the court OVERRULES plaintiff’s objections to the PF&R,
adopts the factual and legal analysis in the PF&R, and GRANTS
defendant’s motion to dismiss.
I.
Background
In 1999, plaintiff was convicted in the Southern District
of Indiana for violations of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846 and is
currently serving a sentence of 300 months imprisonment.
No. 58 at 2).
(Doc.
Plaintiff is a notoriously prolific filer, and,
rather than documenting his lengthy litigation history, the
2
court relies upon Magistrate Judge VanDervort’s thorough account
in the PF&R.
In the instant action, plaintiff filed suit in the Circuit
Court for McDowell County, West Virginia, challenging his
criminal conviction and seeking equitable relief.
(Doc. No. 1
at 1).
On March 6, 2014, defendant removed the case to this
court.
Id.
On March 11, 2014, defendant moved the court to
dismiss the action, asserting a lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
(Doc. No. 3 at 1).
Defendant argued that the
state court could not exercise subject matter jurisdiction over
Defendant Holder in his official capacity when plaintiff filed
his complaint and this court did not acquire subject matter
jurisdiction upon removal.
(Doc. No. 4 at 2).
Further,
defendant argued that the United States did not waive its
sovereign immunity from suit and plaintiff has not alleged a
waiver of that immunity.
(Doc. No. 4 at 1).
As a result,
defendant argued that this court does not have subject matter
jurisdiction over plaintiff’s suit, and, therefore, the court
should dismiss the case.
(Doc. No. 4 at 2).
Plaintiff filed a
host of motions challenging removal and opposing defendant’s
motion to dismiss.
(Doc. Nos. 5, 6, 20, 22, 29, 39, 41, 44, 49,
51).
3
II.
Plaintiff’s Objections to the PF&R
Plaintiff’s objections do not relate to the analysis or
conclusions contained in the PF&R, but instead reiterate the
arguments made in his complaint.
These objections “do not
direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate’s
proposed findings and recommendations” because they are “general
and conclusory.”
1982).
Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir.
As a result, a court need not conduct a de novo review
of such objections.
Id.
However, after review of the PF&R, the record, and
plaintiff’s objections, the court determines that plaintiff’s
arguments are wholly without merit.
In his first objection,
plaintiff seems to argue that, if he pays his criminal fine of
$4,000,000.00, he will have satisfied his criminal conviction
and will no longer be subject to incarceration.
No legal
support exists for plaintiff’s convoluted argument.
Plaintiff
pled guilty to violations of federal law and received a term of
300 months imprisonment and a fine.
The terms of plaintiff’s
sentence mandate that he satisfy both, rather than just one.
Accordingly, the court overrules this objection.
Additionally, plaintiff objects to the applicable law of
his case, attempting to invoke admiralty jurisdiction and
asserting that the Uniform Commercial Code requires the court to
accept a promissory note in exchange for his release from
4
imprisonment.
Again, these objections lack merit.
Plaintiff’s
case is not one of admiralty jurisdiction, nor does the Uniform
Commercial Code apply to his case.
Plaintiff pled guilty and
was convicted of violations of criminal law.
Neither these
violations nor the associated fine have anything to do with
commercial or admiralty law.
The court notes that plaintiff has
tried these arguments before, a number of times, and has never
been successful.
See Harris v. United States, No. 09-154C, 2009
WL 2700207 (Fed. Cl. Aug. 26, 2009); Harris v. Anderson, Civil
Action No. 10-3227-CV-S-RED-H, 2010 WL 4531408 (W.D. Mo. Oct.
14, 2010); Harris v. Wands, Civil Action No. 10-cv-02735-BNB,
2010 WL 5339604 (D. Colo. Dec. 10, 2010); Harris v. Holder,
Civil Action No. 1:14-0584, 2014 WL 4388263 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 3,
2014).
Plaintiff makes a number of arguments related to motions
pending before other courts, specifically, motions pending in
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana.
(Doc. No. 61 at 2–3).
As these arguments neither
relate to the PF&R nor the instant action, the court must
overrule these objections.
III. Plaintiff’s Motion for Application and Interpretation
of a Federal Statute
After filing his objections to the PF&R, plaintiff also
filed a Motion for Application and Interpretation of a Federal
5
Statute.
(Doc. No. 66).
In this motion, plaintiff asks the
court to interpret 28 U.S.C. § 2717 and apply it to his case.
Plaintiff’s argument repeats the same claims he made in his
objections, namely, that the Uniform Commercial Code allows him
to pay his criminal fine by remitting a promissory note.
Plaintiff argues that the United States has failed to notify him
of its intent to dishonor his promissory note, and, as a result,
he should be released from incarceration.
As described above, this argument is meritless.
The
Uniform Commercial Code does not govern payment of plaintiff’s
criminal fine and he cannot remit a promissory note to attain
release from incarceration.
Further, 28 U.S.C. § 2717 offers no
support for plaintiff’s arguments, as it concerns discharge of
attachments in postal suits.
Accordingly, the court denies
plaintiff’s motion.
IV.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law
Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Judgment as a Matter of
Law after filing his objections to the PF&R.
(Doc. No. 67).
In
his motion, plaintiff asks the court to order the government to
remit the penalty fine or enter a satisfaction of debt on the
record.
(Doc. No. 67 at 1).
Again, plaintiff repeats his
argument that the Uniform Commercial Code governs the payment of
his criminal fine, and, since he has offered a promissory note
6
to the United States to pay his fine, he should be released from
incarceration.
As described above, the Uniform Commercial Code does not
apply to payment of plaintiff’s criminal fine.
The United
States has no duty to accept plaintiff’s promissory note.
Therefore, plaintiff’s motion must be denied.
V.
Certificate of Appealability
Additionally, the court has considered whether to grant a
certificate of appealability.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
A
certificate will not be granted unless there is “a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
2253(c)(2).
Id. §
The standard is satisfied only upon a showing that
reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the
constitutional claims by this court is debatable or wrong and
that any dispositive procedural ruling is likewise debatable.
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336–38 (2003); Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676,
683–84 (4th Cir. 2001).
The court concludes that the governing
standard is not satisfied in this instance.
Accordingly the
court DENIES a certificate of appealability.
VI.
Conclusion
The United States retained its sovereign immunity from suit
in state court and the state court did not have jurisdiction
over Defendant Holder.
This court did not acquire subject
7
matter jurisdiction upon defendant’s removal.
Accordingly, the
court OVERRULES plaintiff’s objections to Magistrate Judge
VanDervort’s PF&R.
The court adopts the factual and legal
analysis contained within the PF&R; GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, (Doc. No. 3),
DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunction Against Defendant’s
Removal Action, (Doc. No. 5), DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to
Remand Case Back to Circuit Court, (Doc. No. 6), DENIES
Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, (Doc. No. 20), DENIES
Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint, (Doc. No. 22), DENIES
Plaintiff’s Motion for Mandatory Injunction, (Doc. No. 29),
DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, (Doc.
No. 39), DENIES Plaintiff’s Emergency Rule 65 Motion for
Preliminary Injunction, (Doc. No. 41), DENIES Plaintiff’s
Petition for Judgment as a Matter of Law, (Doc. No. 44), DENIES
Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings of Special
Matters, (Doc. No. 49), DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunction
Ordering the Federal Bureau of Prisons to Release Plaintiff from
Illegal Custody, (Doc. No. 51), DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for
Application and Interpretation of a Federal Statute, (Doc. No.
66), DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings,
(Doc. No. 67), and DISMISSES this matter from the court’s
docket.
Further, the court DENIES a certificate of
appealability.
8
The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum
Opinion and Order to plaintiff, pro se and counsel of record.
It is SO ORDERED this 7th day of October, 2014.
ENTER:
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge
9
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?