Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Straws v. Lexington County Magistrate Court - Document No. 5
Straws v. Lexington County Magistrate Court - Document No. 5
5
4:06-cv-03414-HFF Date Filed 12/12/2006 Entry Number 5 Page 1 of 5
The plaintiff, Jabbar Straws (Plaintiff), proceeding pro se, brings this action pursuant
of the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC), and files this action in forma
pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The Complaint names as defendant a Judge Jeffcoat
(Defendant) of the Lexington County Magistrate Court, and claims Defendant set excessive
This Complaint should be dismissed, because the sole Defendant is immune from
suit.
Under established local procedure in this judicial district, a careful review has been
made of the pro se Complaint pursuant to the procedural provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915;
28 U.S.C. § 1915A; and the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat.
1321 (1996). This review has been conducted in light of the following precedents:
1
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B), and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d),
D.S.C., the undersigned is authorized to review such complaints for relief and submit
findings and recommendations to the District Court.
Dockets.Justia.com
4:06-cv-03414-HFF Date Filed 12/12/2006 Entry Number 5 Page 2 of 5
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324-25
(1989); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); Nasim v. Warden, Md. House of Corr.,
64 F.3d 951 (4th Cir. 1995) (en banc); and Todd v. Baskerville, 712 F.2d 70 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Complaint herein has been filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which permits
administrative costs of proceeding with the lawsuit. To protect against possible abuses of
this privilege, the statute allows a district court to dismiss the case upon a finding that the
action “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted” or is “frivolous or malicious.”
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii). A finding of frivolity can be made where the complaint “lacks an
arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. at 31 (1992).
Hence, under § 1915(e)(2)(B), a claim based on a meritless legal theory may be dismissed
sua sponte. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. at 319; Allison v. Kyle, 66 F.3d 71 (5th Cir. 1995).
Plaintiff is a pro se litigant, and thus his pleadings are accorded liberal construction.
Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5 (1980); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976); Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. at 519; Loe v. Armistead, 582 F. 2d 1291 (4th Cir. 1978); Gordon v.
Leeke, 574 F. 2d 1147 (4th 1978). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard
than those drafted by attorneys. Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. at 5. Even under this less
stringent standard, however, the pro se Complaint is still subject to summary dismissal.
The requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the court can ignore a clear
failure in the pleading to allege facts which set forth a claim currently cognizable in a
federal district court. Weller v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 901 F. 2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990).
2
4:06-cv-03414-HFF Date Filed 12/12/2006 Entry Number 5 Page 3 of 5
Discussion
The sole Defendant is immune from suit, and the suit should thus be dismissed at
this stage in the proceedings. See Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226 (1991) (immunity
presents a threshold question which should be resolved before discovery is even allowed);
and Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985) (absolute immunity "is an immunity from
the judge’s decision, which is clearly a judicial act triggering judicial immunity. Magistrate's
courts are part of South Carolina’s unified judicial system. See Article V, § 1 of the
Constitution of the State of South Carolina ("The judicial power shall be vested in a unified
judicial system, which shall include a Supreme Court, a Court of Appeals, a Circuit Court,
and such other courts of uniform jurisdiction as may be provided for by general law."); City
of Pickens v. Schmitz, 297 S.C. 253, 376 S.E.2d 271, 272 (SC 1989); and Cort Industries
Corp. v. Swirl, Inc., 264 S.C. 142, 213 S.E.2d 445, 446 (SC 1975).
As South Carolina Magistrate Judges are part of the State of South Carolina's
unified judicial system, they have absolute judicial immunity. See Macon v. Cox, No. 04-
01311, slip-op at 1, 2005 WL 4572216 (D.S.C. June 13, 2005). Hence, Judge Jeffcoat is
judicial immunity with respect to his judicial acts in Plaintiff’s criminal case. See Mireles
v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 116 L.Ed.2d 9, 112 S.Ct. 286 (1991); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S.
349, 351-364 (1978); Pressly v. Gregory, 831 F.2d 514, 517 (4th Cir. 1987) (a suit by
3
4:06-cv-03414-HFF Date Filed 12/12/2006 Entry Number 5 Page 4 of 5
South Carolina inmate against two Virginia magistrates); and Chu v. Griffith, 771 F.2d 79,
81 (4th Cir. 1985) ("[i]t has long been settled that a judge is absolutely immune from a
Plaintiff has already filed three federal cases this year. In a previous case (C/A No.
4:06-2475-HFF-TER), Plaintiff was told that a judge is immune from suit. Yet, he has filed
this case with the same deficiency. Because this case is frivolous, names an immune
Defendant, and fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, it is recommended
that this case be deemed a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). This will be Plaintiff’s
Recommendation
case without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. See Denton v.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (as soon as possible after docketing, district
courts should review prisoner cases to determine whether they are subject to summary
dismissal).
above-captioned case be deemed a “strike” for purposes of the “three strikes” rule of 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Respectfully submitted,
4
4:06-cv-03414-HFF Date Filed 12/12/2006 Entry Number 5 Page 5 of 5
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report
and Recommendation with the District Court Judge. Objections must specifically identify
the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the
basis for such objections. In the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need
not conduct a de novo review, but instead must “only satisfy itself that there is no clear
error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond v.
Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005).
Specific written objections must be filed within ten (10) days of the date of service
of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The
time calculation of this ten-day period excludes weekends and holidays and provides for
an additional three (3) days for filing by mail. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a) & (e). Filing by mail
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to: