From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Davis v. U.S.

United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
Mar 29, 2007
Case Number CIV-06-1376-C (W.D. Okla. Mar. 29, 2007)

Summary

holding a federal public defender is not a federal officer for purposes of a Bivens action

Summary of this case from Jones v. Joyner

Opinion

Case Number CIV-06-1376-C.

March 29, 2007


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION


This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R R") entered by Magistrate Judge Valerie K. Couch on March 8, 2007. Therein, Judge Couch recommended dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state a claim for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and that the dismissal count as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Judge Couch noted that despite raising a variety of claims Plaintiff had failed to raise a single issue that stated a claim for relief. Indeed, all of Plaintiff's claims are either barred by clear and well established law, or seek relief that is unavailable from a court of law.

In the R R, Plaintiff was notified that any objection to the R R had to be filed by March 28, 2007. Rather than file an objection, Plaintiff, within the time limit, filed a "Motion to Withdraw Civil Action. The Court denies Plaintiff's motion. As noted, the law is clear on the futility of Plaintiff's claims. Thus, with even limited research Plaintiff could have learned the inadequacy of his claims. To allow Plaintiff to withdraw would permit him to avoid receiving a strike, would encourage such frivolous filings in the future and would result in future needless expenditures of judicial resources. Consequently, the Court denies Plaintiff's request. Further, Plaintiff's claims cannot be cured by amendment; therefore, the dismissal in this case will be with prejudice. To permit Plaintiff to withdraw would allow him to avoid the preclusive effect of a dismissal with prejudice and again permit additional waste of judicial resources.

Plaintiff filed a request to extend the time to object but then filed his request to withdraw. The Court finds the request to withdraw moots the request for additional time.

The Court adopts in full the thorough and well reasoned R R entered by Judge Couch and DISMISSES this action with prejudice. Upon final appellate review, this matter shall count as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff's Motion to Withdraw Civil Action (Dkt. No. 28) is DENIED. All other pending motions are also DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Davis v. U.S.

United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
Mar 29, 2007
Case Number CIV-06-1376-C (W.D. Okla. Mar. 29, 2007)

holding a federal public defender is not a federal officer for purposes of a Bivens action

Summary of this case from Jones v. Joyner

holding a federal public defender is not a federal officer for purposes of a Bivens-type action

Summary of this case from Melcher v. Huber

holding a federal public defender is not a federal officer for purposes of a Bivens-type action

Summary of this case from Hawkins v. U.S.
Case details for

Davis v. U.S.

Case Details

Full title:JOHN MELVIN DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; OKLAHOMA COUNTY…

Court:United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma

Date published: Mar 29, 2007

Citations

Case Number CIV-06-1376-C (W.D. Okla. Mar. 29, 2007)

Citing Cases

Thomas v. United States

; Bradford v. Shankman, No. 85-5150, 1985 WL 13659, at *1 (6th Cir. Aug.12, 1985) (“[A] private attorney and…

Richie Hansford Conner v. Hart

represent defendants in federal proceedings are not federal officials for purposes of Bivens."); Bradford v.…