Anderson v. Monroe County Sheriff's Department

Full title: KEITH JOHN ANDERSON, Plaintiff v. MONROE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT…

Court: United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Macon Division

Date published: Aug 27, 2007

NO. 5:07-cv-219 (WDO) (M.D. Ga. Aug. 27, 2007)

Opinion

NO. 5:07-cv-219 (WDO).

August 27, 2007

ORDER

C. ROYAL, District Judge

Plaintiff KEITH JOHN ANDERSON has filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In compliance with this Court's previous order, plaintiff has supplemented his complaint (Tab # 10).

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

Because the Court has permitted plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis, his complaint is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court is required to review complaints filed by prisoners against a governmental entity or employees of a governmental entity and dismiss any portion of the complaint it finds: (1) is frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. An action is frivolous when the plaintiff's legal theory or factual contentions lack an arguable basis either in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). B. General Requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 1983

In order to state a claim for relief under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements. First, the plaintiff must allege that an act or omission deprived him of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States. See Wideman v. Shallowford Community Hosp., Inc., 826 F.2d 1030, 1032 (11^th Cir. 1987). Second, the plaintiff must allege that the act or omission was committed by a person acting under color of state law. Id.

II. BACKGROUND

III. DISCUSSION

¹ Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 Younger, Younger Middlesex Co. Ethics Comm'n v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 57 U.S. 423432 Younger

1 The allegations in plaintiff's complaint and supplement are extremely unclear. In his supplement, plaintiff alleges "I never committed any crime in Georgia." In his original complaint, however, plaintiff states that he was pulled over in Georgia and "recharged with receiving stolen property and driving [with a] suspended license here in Georgia for the same car." Plaintiff thus appears to be complaining about his being charged with offenses in Monroe County, Georgia, and his pleadings are so construed.

Moreover, to the extent that plaintiff seeks dismissal of the charges brought against him and release from prison, plaintiff's exclusive remedy is to file a habeas corpus action. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); Rice v. Baker, 2006 WL 1410186 (11^th Cir. May 23, 2006). Plaintiff must exhaust his state remedies before seeking federal habeas relief.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the complaint against the defendant should be DISMISSED as being frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

SO ORDERED.