United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
KEITH WATKINS, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Arthur Brennan Malloy is a state inmate and serial
litigant. He filed this suit under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 to challenge a state court's denial of his motion to
reconsider his sentence and a state court's denial of his
motion for relief from judgment. He prayed for a declaratory
judgment that the state court erroneously denied his motion
for reconsideration, an injunction reinstating his
state-court appeal, and $13.5 million in compensatory and
punitive damages. (Doc. # 1.)
Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing Malloy's
complaint as “malicious” under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i). (Doc. # 6.) Malloy objected to that
Recommendation. (Doc. # 8.) But Malloy's objections are
due to be overruled, and the Recommendation is due to be
initial matter, the court notes that Malloy's objections
are inadequate. An objection to a Magistrate Judge's
Recommendation must “pinpoint the specific findings
that the party disagrees with.” United States v.
Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009);
see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) (requiring
“specific” objections). “Frivolous,
conclusive, or general objections need not be considered by
the district court.” Marsden v. Moore, 847
F.2d 1536, 1548 (11th Cir. 1988). Malloy argues that the
Recommendation “is in itself malicious, capricious,
erroneous as a matter of record, fact and well-established
law, arbitrary to the record, facts and well-established law,
and severely conflicts with the decisions of ten (10) other
Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal on the same point of
law.” (Doc. # 8, at 1-2.) But the objection does not
identify any particular errors in the Recommendation. Nor
does it identify any of the appellate decisions with which
the Recommendation supposedly conflicts. The court therefore
need not consider Malloy's objections.
the court has conducted a de novo review of the
Recommendation, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and
concluded that the Recommendation is due to be adopted.
action may be dismissed as malicious or frivolous if it
duplicates claims raised by the same plaintiff in previous or
pending litigation.” Bagby v. Karriker, 555
Fed.Appx. 405, 406 (5th Cir. 2014); see Peoples v.
Reno, 230 F.3d 1359 (6th Cir. 2000) (unpublished);
Young v. Hansen, 129 F.3d 1253 (1st Cir. 1997)
(unpublished); McWilliams v. Colorado, 121 F.3d 573,
575 (10th Cir. 1997); Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d
1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995); Bailey v. Johnson,
846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988); Van Meter v.
Morgan, 518 F.2d 366, 368 (8th Cir. 1975).
claims that Malloy brings in this case are almost
word-for-word identical to claims he brought against the same
defendants in Malloy v. County of Montgomery, No.
2:15-CV-989 (M.D. Ala. filed Dec. 4, 2015). Relying on
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994), and
Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997), this
court dismissed Malloy's earlier lawsuit. (No. 15-CV-989,
Docs. # 5, 9.) The Eleventh Circuit then dismissed
Malloy's appeal as frivolous. (No. 15-CV-989, Docs. # 20,
result, the court has “especially broad
discretion” in determining whether to dismiss
Malloy's present complaint as “malicious.”
Bailey, 846 F.2d at 1021 (quoting Green v.
McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116, 1119 (5th Cir. 1986)). Because
Malloy brings the same claims against the same defendants,
and because the earlier decision demonstrated that his
complaint was legally barred, the court agrees with the
Magistrate Judge that Malloy's complaint should be
dismissed as malicious under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i). See Id.
therefore ORDERED that:
1. The objections to the Recommendation (Doc. # 8) are
2. The Magistrate Judge's Recommendation (Doc. # 6) is
3. The complaint (Doc. # 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
separate Final ...