Walker v. Officers & Officers of the Courts Individually & in Their Official Capacity
| Decision Date | 15 February 2012 |
| Docket Number | Case No. CV411-303 |
| Parties | DERRICK LEE WALKER, Plaintiff, v. OFFICERS AND OFFICERS OF THE COURTS INDIVIDUALLY AND IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia |
Indicted on March 2, 2011 on drug charges, see attached state court docket, Derrick Lee Walker seeks money damages and an order from this Court enjoining that prosecution. Doc. 1 at 1-2. He invokes 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to do this,1 and has since petitioned for 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeasrelief. Walker v. St. Lawrence, CV412-203 (S.D. Ga. filed Jan. 25, 2012).
Walker has obviously trolled the U.S. Code and cited every last civil rights statute he could find, doc. 1 at 2 (). He does so while naming (in his complaint's caption) as defendants only the "officers" involved in his prosecution, which he explains (in the body of his complaint) are the "District Attorney's [sic] for Chatham County Judicial Circuit" (hence, the District Attorney's Office) and his defense counsel. Doc. 1 at 3.
His money damages claim against the District Attorney, even if it could meet the elements of the civil remedies he invokes, is barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. Owens v. Fulton County, 877 F.2d 947, 952 (11th Cir. 1989) (); McClendon v. May, 37 F.Supp.2d 1371, 1375-76 (S.D. Ga. 1999); Leonard v. City of Columbus,2011WL 672249 at * 2 (M.D. Ga. Jan. 20, 2011).2 And his defense lawyer is not a state actor, so his claims against her fail, too. Polk v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 314, 317-19 (1981); id. at 325 ().
Walker also seeks to enjoin what he characterizes as a bad faith prosecution. Doc. 1 at 11-12. That relief is available only where extraordinary circumstances are shown to support a federal injunction against a state prosecution. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 41 (1971) (); see also Cole v. State of Florida, 2010 WL 2711861 at * 3 n. 4 (N.D. Fla. Jun. 3, 2010). Special circumstances are not alleged here, so this claim fails, too.
Finally, to the extent Walker seeks release from custody, he is in substance bringing a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas action, not a § 1983 claim. See Hudson v. Hubbard, 358 F. App'x 116, 119 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing Medberry v. Crosby, 351 F.3d 1049, 1062 (11th Cir. 2003)); see also Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005) () (quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489 (1973)); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 553-55 (1974) (). He ultimately seeks to challenge the fact or duration of his confinement by the state, so he "must seek federal habeas corpus relief (or appropriate state relief) instead" of a § 1983 judgment. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 78. To do that he must first exhaust his state court remedies.3 Hence, his request for release is non-cognizable under § 1983.And, as noted, his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition must be dismissed for lack of exhaustion. Put another way, Walker must return to the state court where he belongs.
At this stage the Court ordinarily considers whether to sua sponte grant plaintiffs like Walker a second chance to plead their case. Langlois v. Traveler's Ins. Co., 401 F. App'x. 425, 426-427 (11th Cir. 2010). However, it is apparent that a second chance would be futile here. Accordingly, Derrick Lee Walker's case should be DISMISSED. Hale v. King, 2012 WL 84820 at * 3 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 12, 2012) (). The Court also DENIES his motion for appointment of counsel. Doc. 9.4
In the meantime, it is time for Walker to pay his filing fee. Hisfurnished account information shows that he has had funds in his prison account during the past six months. Doc. 6 (). He therefore owes an initial partial filing fee of $2.06. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) (). Plaintiffs custodian (or designee) therefore shall deduct $2.06 from Walker's account and, when combined with future collections to reach $10.00, remit it to the Clerk of Court (payable to the "Clerk of Court"). The custodian shall also set aside 20 percent of all future deposits to the account, then forward those funds to the Clerk each time the set aside amount reaches $10.00, until the balance of the Court's $350.00 filing fee has been paid in full.
Also, the Clerk is DIRECTED to send this R&R to plaintiff's account custodian (G. Sheppard, doc. 6) immediately, as this payment directive is nondispositive within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), so no Rule 72(b) adoption is required. In the event plaintiff is transferred to another institution, his present custodian shall forward a copy of this Order and all financial information concerning payment of the filing feeand costs in this case to plaintiff's new custodian. The balance due from the plaintiff shall be collected by the custodian at his next institution in accordance with the terms of this Order.
SO REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED this 15th day of February, 2012.
________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
+----------------------------------------------------------+
¦Case Information ¦ ¦
+------------------------------+---------------------------¦
¦Court: ¦Superior ¦
+------------------------------+---------------------------¦
¦Case Number: ¦CR110528 ¦
+------------------------------+---------------------------¦
¦Case Type: ¦DRUGS - SALE/TRAFFICKING ¦
+------------------------------+---------------------------¦
¦Judge: ¦HONORABLE LOUISA ABBOT ¦
+------------------------------+---------------------------¦
¦Assistant District Attorney: ¦JUSTIN MAINES ¦
+------------------------------+---------------------------¦
¦Date Filed: ¦3/2/2011 ¦
+------------------------------+---------------------------¦
¦Status: ¦ACTIVE- ¦
+------------------------------+---------------------------¦
¦Next Event: ¦2/13/2012 TRIAL DOCKET CALL¦
+----------------------------------------------------------+
Defendant Information
Sender: MALE
Race: AFRICAN
AMERICAN
Height: 67
Weight: 190
Eyes: BROWN
Hair: BLACK
Attorney Information
JUNE FOGLE
SAVANNAH, GA
31401
Bondsman Information
Case Events
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦Date ¦Time ¦Code ¦Judge ¦Action ¦
+------------+-------+----------------+----------------+----------------------¦
¦12/13/2012 ¦09:00AM¦TRIAL DOCKET ¦LOUISA ABBOT ¦ ¦
¦ ¦ ¦CALL ¦ ¦ ¦
+------------+-------+----------------+----------------+----------------------¦
¦12/8/2011 ¦2:00PM ¦TRIAL DOCKET ¦LOUISA ABBOT ¦RESCHEDULE EVENT ¦
¦ ¦ ¦CALL ¦ ¦ ¦
+------------+-------+----------------+----------------+----------------------¦
¦11/14/2011 ¦09:00AM¦TRIAL DOCKET ¦LOUISA ABBOT ¦RESCHEDULE EVENT ¦
¦ ¦ ¦CALL ¦ ¦ ¦
+------------+-------+----------------+----------------+----------------------¦
¦9/22/2011 ¦3:00PM ¦PLEA HEARING ¦LOUISA ABBOT ¦OTHER ¦
+------------+-------+----------------+----------------+----------------------¦
¦9/15/2011 8/¦10:00AM¦PLEA HEARING ¦LOUISA ABBOT ¦RESCHEDULE EVENT ¦
¦11/2011 ¦ ¦PLEA HEARING ¦LOUISA ABBOT ¦RESCHEDULE EVENT ¦
¦ ¦10:00AM¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+------------+-------+----------------+----------------+----------------------¦
¦6/16/2011 ¦10:00AM¦PLEA HEARING ¦LOUISA ABBOT ¦RESCHEDULE EVENT ¦
+------------+-------+----------------+----------------+----------------------¦
¦ ¦ ¦STATUS ¦ ¦ ¦
¦4/12/2011 ¦10:00AM¦CONFERENCE ¦LOUISA ABBOT ¦ ¦
¦ ¦ ¦HEARING ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
[Return to Top]
Charges
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦Charge ¦Description ¦Counts ¦Severity ¦Charge Date ¦Disposition ¦
+----------+--------------+--------+----------+-------------+-----------------¦
¦16-13-30 ¦SALE OF ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
¦(B)SELL ¦CONTROLLED ¦1 ¦FELONY ¦8/30/2010 ¦ ¦
¦ ¦SUBSTANCE ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+----------+--------------+--------+----------+-------------+-----------------¦
¦ ¦USE ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
¦16-13-32.3¦COMMUNICATION ¦1 ¦FELONY ¦8/30/2010 ¦ ¦
¦ ¦FAC. FOR ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
¦ ¦CRIMINAL USE ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦...To continue reading
Request your trial