United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Western Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
R.
DAVID PROCTOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
The
Magistrate Judge filed a report on August 27, 2019,
recommending that Defendants' motion for summary judgment
be granted and the federal claims in this action be dismissed
with prejudice. (Doc. # 43). The Magistrate Judge further
recommended that Plaintiff's state-law claims be
dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1367. (Id.). Plaintiff filed objections to the
report and recommendation on October 16, 2019 (Doc. # 48).
Plaintiff's
first objection (doc. # 48 at 6) is directed toward the
Magistrate Judge's statement that a § 1985
conspiracy claim requires a showing that the defendants acted
with “racial or otherwise class based animus.”
(Doc. # 43 at 10). Plaintiff cites Kush v. Rutledge,
460 U.S. 719 (1983) for the proposition that no such showing
is required. However, the Kush case involved claims
asserted under § 1985(2), and the ruling was specific to
that subsection of the statute. The claims asserted in
Plaintiff's complaint are asserted under § 1985(3).
Plaintiff
also contends that the Magistrate Judge wrongly concluded
that the abuse of process claim was due to be dismissed as
meritless. (Doc. # 48 at 7). Plaintiff contends that Document
37-1 “clearly shows [the defendants] acted outside of
boundaries of legitimate procedure.” (Id. at
8). This objection is without merit. The Magistrate Judge
correctly concluded that Plaintiff had failed to establish an
essential element of an abuse of process claim.
In his
discussion of Plaintiff's malicious prosecution claim and
the essential elements required for that claim, the
Magistrate Judge concluded, inter alia, that the
state court proceedings on which the claim is based were not
concluded in Plaintiff's favor. (Doc # 43 at 13).
Plaintiff objects to that conclusion, arguing that Defendants
sought to have Plaintiff revoked on his underlying
fifteen-year sentence, yet he was only revoked to serve his
split sentence. (Doc. # 48 at 8; Doc. # 23-1 at 46-49). This
objection is frivolous. The state court revocation
proceedings clearly did not end in Plaintiff's favor, as
he was revoked from community corrections and ordered to
serve time in the state penitentiary. The Magistrate Judge
correctly concluded that Plaintiff had failed to establish a
necessary element of his malicious prosecution claim.
Plaintiff
next objects to the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that
the false imprisonment claim is due to be dismissed on the
basis of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. (Doc. # 48 at
8). Plaintiff contends that the state court “did not
rule on the merits of over detention but ruled upon the
notion that [he] was seeking some sort of credit toward his
sentence in error.” (Id. at 9). He therefore
contends that the fourth factor necessary to establish
Rooker-Feldman (i.e., that the state court
either adjudicated the issue that is now before the federal
court, or that issue was inextricably intertwined with the
state court's judgment) is not established in the record
before this court. (Id. at 9). However, as the
Magistrate Judge correctly concluded, the issue of
“over detention” was inextricably intertwined
with the state court proceedings which concluded with a final
adjudication on May 7, 2018. Furthermore, the Magistrate
Judge also correctly recognized that the specific issue of
Defendants' alleged conspiracy to cause “over
detention” could have been raised in Plaintiff's
Rule 32 petition but was not. (Doc. # 43 at 15, n. 14).
Finally,
Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge's statement in
footnote 15 of the Report and Recommendation that the
“over detention” issue was raised in the context
of the § 1985 conspiracy claim, a claim that was
rejected on the merits. (Doc. # 43 at 16). Although the
accuracy or inaccuracy of the Magistrate Judge's footnote
would have no bearing on the ultimate outcome of this matter,
it is notable that paragraphs 19 and 20 of Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint allege that it was Defendants'
“conspiracy to effect overdetention” that caused
his damages and that “[t]he essential elements of a 42
U.S.C. § 1985 claim are: (1) a conspiracy; (2) to
deprive plaintiff of equal protection or equal privileges and
immunities; (3) and act in furtherance of the conspiracy; and
(4) an injury or deprivation resulting therefrom.”
(Doc. # 23 at 7). This language clearly demonstrates
Plaintiff's intent to assert the “over
detention” claim in the context of his §1985
conspiracy claim, a claim that the Magistrate Judge correctly
concluded was meritless. Accordingly, Plaintiff's
objections to the report and recommendation are
OVERRULED.
Having
carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the
materials in the court file, including the report and
recommendation and the objections thereto, the Magistrate
Judge's report is hereby ADOPTED and the
recommendation is ACCEPTED. Finding that no
genuine issues of material fact exist, the court
ORDERS that Defendants' motion for
summary judgment (doc. # 29) is due to be
GRANTED. Accordingly, Plaintiff's
federal claims are due to be dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiff's state law claims are due to be dismissed
without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. A
separate Final Judgment will be entered.
Plaintiff's
motion to amend the complaint (doc. # 47) is
DENIED. The court's October 31, 2018
Order notified Plaintiff that no further amendments would be
allowed absent good cause shown. (Doc. # 24 at 2). Plaintiff
has failed to demonstrate good cause to allow an amendment at
this late date in the proceedings.
The
Clerk is DIRECTED to serve a copy of this
Memorandum Opinion and Order and its accompanying Final
Judgment on Plaintiff and on counsel of record.
DONE
...