Opinion
Case No. CV411-303
02-15-2012
DERRICK LEE WALKER, Plaintiff, v. OFFICERS AND OFFICERS OF THE COURTS INDIVIDUALLY AND IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Indicted on March 2, 2011 on drug charges, see attached state court docket, Derrick Lee Walker seeks money damages and an order from this Court enjoining that prosecution. Doc. 1 at 1-2. He invokes 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to do this, and has since petitioned for 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas relief. Walker v. St. Lawrence, CV412-203 (S.D. Ga. filed Jan. 25, 2012).
Since he has completed his IFP paperwork, docs. 6 & 7, the Court will now screen his case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), which allows a district court to sua sponte dismiss a claim of a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis for failure to state a claim before service of process. See also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (courts must identify "cognizable claims" filed by prisoners or other detainees and dismiss claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief, and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(2) (allowing dismissal on the same four standards provided by § 1915A as to any prisoner suit brought "with respect to prison conditions").
The Court applies the Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) standards here. Leal v. Ga. Dep't of Corrs., 254 F.3d 1276, 1278-79 (11th Cir. 2001). Allegations in the complaint are thus viewed as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Bumpus v. Watts, 2011 WL 4436591 at * 1 n. 1 (11th Cir. Sep. 26, 2011). But conclusory allegations fail. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. ___, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1951 (2009) (discussing a 12(b)(6) dismissal). "[T]he pleading standard [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 8 announces does not require 'detailed factual allegations,' but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Id., 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (citations omitted); see also Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (pro se pleadings are still construed liberally after Iqbal).
Walker has obviously trolled the U.S. Code and cited every last civil rights statute he could find, doc. 1 at 2 (listing things like the criminal civil rights statutes and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1985, 1986 etc.). He does so while naming (in his complaint's caption) as defendants only the "officers" involved in his prosecution, which he explains (in the body of his complaint) are the "District Attorney's [sic] for Chatham County Judicial Circuit" (hence, the District Attorney's Office) and his defense counsel. Doc. 1 at 3.
His money damages claim against the District Attorney, even if it could meet the elements of the civil remedies he invokes, is barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. Owens v. Fulton County, 877 F.2d 947, 952 (11th Cir. 1989) (the office exercises state power); McClendon v. May, 37 F.Supp.2d 1371, 1375-76 (S.D. Ga. 1999); Leonard v. City of Columbus, 2011WL 672249 at * 2 (M.D. Ga. Jan. 20, 2011). And his defense lawyer is not a state actor, so his claims against her fail, too. Polk v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 314, 317-19 (1981); id. at 325 ("a public defender does not act under color of state law when performing a lawyer's traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal proceeding.").
Additionally, "[a] prosecutor is entitled to absolute immunity for all actions he takes while performing his function as an advocate for the government." Rivera v. Leal, 359 F.3d 1350,1353 (11th Cir. 2004). Walker alleges nothing beyond that here. And "[i]t is well established in this circuit that supervisory officials are not liable under § 1983 for the unconstitutional acts of their subordinates unless the supervisor personally participates in the alleged constitutional violation or there is a causal connection between actions of the supervising official and the alleged constitutional deprivation." Doe v. Sch. Bd. of Broward Cnty., 604 F.3d 1248, 1266 (11th Cir. 2010) (quotes and cite omitted). At most Walker plies a vicarious liability recovery theory here.
Walker also seeks to enjoin what he characterizes as a bad faith prosecution. Doc. 1 at 11-12. That relief is available only where extraordinary circumstances are shown to support a federal injunction against a state prosecution. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 41 (1971) (an ongoing state criminal proceeding may not be enjoined "except under special circumstances."); see also Cole v. State of Florida, 2010 WL 2711861 at * 3 n. 4 (N.D. Fla. Jun. 3, 2010). Special circumstances are not alleged here, so this claim fails, too.
Finally, to the extent Walker seeks release from custody, he is in substance bringing a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas action, not a § 1983 claim. See Hudson v. Hubbard, 358 F. App'x 116, 119 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing Medberry v. Crosby, 351 F.3d 1049, 1062 (11th Cir. 2003)); see also Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005) ("[A] prisoner in state custody cannot use a § 1983 action to challenge 'the fact or duration of his confinement.'") (quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489 (1973)); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 553-55 (1974) (delineating distinctions between using § 1983 to pursue damages, and habeas for claims affecting confinement). He ultimately seeks to challenge the fact or duration of his confinement by the state, so he "must seek federal habeas corpus relief (or appropriate state relief) instead" of a § 1983 judgment. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 78. To do that he must first exhaust his state court remedies. Hence, his request for release is non-cognizable under § 1983. And, as noted, his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition must be dismissed for lack of exhaustion. Put another way, Walker must return to the state court where he belongs.
Walker does not plead, nor can he credibly claim, that judicial review is not available to him in the Georgia courts:
So long as review is available in the Georgia courts . . . "this Court is precluded from the consideration of the substance of [Walker's claims] until the issues have been squarely and fairly presented to the Georgia courts for their consideration." Fields v. Tankersley, 487 F. Supp. 1389, 1391 (S.D. Ga. 1980). As Petitioner apparently has not sought relief in state court, he has not exhausted his state court remedies. See Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346, 109 S. Ct. 1056,103 L. Ed. 2d 380 (1989) (holding that a claim is only exhausted if it was presented to the state courts under remedies available under state law).Ellis v. Unnamed Defendant, 2010 WL 3842806 at * 1 (N.D. Ga. Sep. 28, 2010); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); see also Harvey v. Corbin, 2011 WL 4369828 at * 2 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 12, 2011) (collecting pre-conviction, state remedy cases).
At this stage the Court ordinarily considers whether to sua sponte grant plaintiffs like Walker a second chance to plead their case. Langlois v. Traveler's Ins. Co., 401 F. App'x. 425, 426-427 (11th Cir. 2010). However, it is apparent that a second chance would be futile here. Accordingly, Derrick Lee Walker's case should be DISMISSED. Hale v. King, 2012 WL 84820 at * 3 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 12, 2012) (same result in similar prosecution jam-up case). The Court also DENIES his motion for appointment of counsel. Doc. 9.
"A plaintiff in a civil case has no constitutional right to counsel." Bass v. Perrin, 170 F.3d 1312, 1320 (11th Cir. 1999). This Court appoints counsel only in exceptional circumstances "such as where the facts and legal issues are so novel or complex as to require the assistance of a trained practitioner." Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1216 (11th Cir. 1992). Walker has shown nothing like that here.
In the meantime, it is time for Walker to pay his filing fee. His furnished account information shows that he has had funds in his prison account during the past six months. Doc. 6 ($10.30 average monthly balance for the last six months). He therefore owes an initial partial filing fee of $2.06. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) (requiring an initial fee assessment "when funds exist," under a specific 20 percent formula). Plaintiffs custodian (or designee) therefore shall deduct $2.06 from Walker's account and, when combined with future collections to reach $10.00, remit it to the Clerk of Court (payable to the "Clerk of Court"). The custodian shall also set aside 20 percent of all future deposits to the account, then forward those funds to the Clerk each time the set aside amount reaches $10.00, until the balance of the Court's $350.00 filing fee has been paid in full.
Also, the Clerk is DIRECTED to send this R&R to plaintiff's account custodian (G. Sheppard, doc. 6) immediately, as this payment directive is nondispositive within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), so no Rule 72(b) adoption is required. In the event plaintiff is transferred to another institution, his present custodian shall forward a copy of this Order and all financial information concerning payment of the filing fee and costs in this case to plaintiff's new custodian. The balance due from the plaintiff shall be collected by the custodian at his next institution in accordance with the terms of this Order.
SO REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED this 15th day of February, 2012.
________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
+----------------------------------------------------------+ ¦Case Information ¦ ¦ +------------------------------+---------------------------¦ ¦Court: ¦Superior ¦ +------------------------------+---------------------------¦ ¦Case Number: ¦CR110528 ¦ +------------------------------+---------------------------¦ ¦Case Type: ¦DRUGS - SALE/TRAFFICKING ¦ +------------------------------+---------------------------¦ ¦Judge: ¦HONORABLE LOUISA ABBOT ¦ +------------------------------+---------------------------¦ ¦Assistant District Attorney: ¦JUSTIN MAINES ¦ +------------------------------+---------------------------¦ ¦Date Filed: ¦3/2/2011 ¦ +------------------------------+---------------------------¦ ¦Status: ¦ACTIVE- ¦ +------------------------------+---------------------------¦ ¦Next Event: ¦2/13/2012 TRIAL DOCKET CALL¦ +----------------------------------------------------------+
Defendant Information
Name: WALKER, DERRICK LEE
DIN: S0095443
Sender: MALE
Race: AFRICAN
AMERICAN
Height: 67
Weight: 190
Eyes: BROWN
Hair: BLACK
Attorney Information
JUNE FOGLE
540 EAST OGLETHORPE AVE
SAVANNAH, GA
31401
Bondsman Information
Case Events
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦Date ¦Time ¦Code ¦Judge ¦Action ¦ +------------+-------+----------------+----------------+----------------------¦ ¦12/13/2012 ¦09:00AM¦TRIAL DOCKET ¦LOUISA ABBOT ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦CALL ¦ ¦ ¦ +------------+-------+----------------+----------------+----------------------¦ ¦12/8/2011 ¦2:00PM ¦TRIAL DOCKET ¦LOUISA ABBOT ¦RESCHEDULE EVENT ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦CALL ¦ ¦ ¦ +------------+-------+----------------+----------------+----------------------¦ ¦11/14/2011 ¦09:00AM¦TRIAL DOCKET ¦LOUISA ABBOT ¦RESCHEDULE EVENT ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦CALL ¦ ¦ ¦ +------------+-------+----------------+----------------+----------------------¦ ¦9/22/2011 ¦3:00PM ¦PLEA HEARING ¦LOUISA ABBOT ¦OTHER ¦ +------------+-------+----------------+----------------+----------------------¦ ¦9/15/2011 8/¦10:00AM¦PLEA HEARING ¦LOUISA ABBOT ¦RESCHEDULE EVENT ¦ ¦11/2011 ¦ ¦PLEA HEARING ¦LOUISA ABBOT ¦RESCHEDULE EVENT ¦ ¦ ¦10:00AM¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +------------+-------+----------------+----------------+----------------------¦ ¦6/16/2011 ¦10:00AM¦PLEA HEARING ¦LOUISA ABBOT ¦RESCHEDULE EVENT ¦ +------------+-------+----------------+----------------+----------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦STATUS ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦4/12/2011 ¦10:00AM¦CONFERENCE ¦LOUISA ABBOT ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦HEARING ¦ ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
[Return to Top]
Charges
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦Charge ¦Description ¦Counts ¦Severity ¦Charge Date ¦Disposition 1 ¦ +----------+--------------+--------+----------+-------------+-----------------¦ ¦16-13-30 ¦SALE OF ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦(B)SELL ¦CONTROLLED ¦1 ¦FELONY ¦8/30/2010 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦SUBSTANCE ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +----------+--------------+--------+----------+-------------+-----------------¦ ¦ ¦USE ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦16-13-32.3¦COMMUNICATION ¦1 ¦FELONY ¦8/30/2010 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦FAC. FOR ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦CRIMINAL USE ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +----------+--------------+--------+----------+-------------+-----------------¦ ¦16-13-30 ¦SALE OF ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦(B)Sell ¦CONTROLLED ¦1 ¦FELONY ¦8/30/2010 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦SUBSTANCE ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
[Return to Top]
Proceedings
+----------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦2/13/2012¦09:00AM¦TRIAL DOCKET CALL¦¦LOUISA ABBOT¦ ¦ +---------+-------+-----------------++------------+--------------¦ ¦2/1/2012 ¦ ¦PRO SE MOTION ¦¦ ¦NTC OF APPEAL/¦ +----------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦PRO SE ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦1/27¦ ¦LETTER ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦RECEIVED ¦ ¦ ¦ADDRESSED TO ATTY M. EDWARDS/ ¦ ¦2012¦ ¦AND CLERKS ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦RESPONSE ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +----+-------+-----------+----------+------+----------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦PROSE ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦1/13¦ ¦LETTER ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦RECEIVED ¦ ¦ ¦ADDRESSED TO MICHAEL EDWARDS/ ¦ ¦2012¦ ¦AND CLERKS ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦RESPONSE ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +----+-------+-----------+----------+------+----------------------------------¦ ¦1/13¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦SIGNED ORDER ON DEFS PRO SE DEMAND¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦ORDER ¦ ¦ ¦TO DISMISS CHARGES - STRICKEN/ ¦ ¦2012¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +----+-------+-----------+----------+------+----------------------------------¦ ¦1/11¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦SIGNED ORDER ON MTN TO SUBPOENA ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦ORDER ¦ ¦ ¦THE INVESTIGATOR OF THE PD OFFICE ¦ ¦2012¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦MR. MACKY - DISMISSED/ ¦ +----+-------+-----------+----------+------+----------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦PRO SE ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦1/11¦ ¦LETTER ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦RECEIVED ¦DISMISSED ¦ ¦DEMAND TO DISMISS CHARGES/ ¦ ¦2012¦ ¦AND CLERKS ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦RESPONSE ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +----+-------+-----------+----------+------+----------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦PRO SE ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦1/4/¦ ¦LETTER ¦ ¦ ¦MTN TO SUBPOENA THE INVESTIGATER ¦ ¦2012¦ ¦RECEIVED ¦DISMISSED ¦ ¦OF THE PD OFFICE MR. MACKY/ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦AND CLERKS ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦RESPONSE ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +----+-------+-----------+----------+------+----------------------------------¦ ¦1/4/¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦SIGNED ORDER ON MTN TO SUBPOENA ¦ ¦2012¦ ¦ORDER ¦ ¦ ¦ATTY JENNIFER BURNS OF THE PD ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦OFFICE - DENIED/ ¦ +----+-------+-----------+----------+------+----------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦PRO SE ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦12/ ¦ ¦LETTER ¦ ¦ ¦MTN TO SUBPOENA ATTY J. BURNS OF ¦ ¦30/ ¦ ¦RECEIVED ¦DENIED ¦ ¦PD OFFICE/ ¦ ¦2011¦ ¦AND CLERKS ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦RESPONSE ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +----+-------+-----------+----------+------+----------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦PRO SE ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦12/ ¦ ¦LETTER ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦16/ ¦ ¦RECEIVED ¦ ¦ ¦REQUEST ALL MTNS/ ¦ ¦2011¦ ¦AND CLERKS ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦RESPONSE ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +------------+-----------+----------+------+----------------------------------¦ ¦12/13/2011 ¦ORDER ¦ ¦ ¦SIGNED ORDER ON MTN TO REDUCE BOND¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦- STRICKEN/ ¦ +------------+-----------+----------+------+----------------------------------¦ ¦12/8¦ ¦TRIAL ¦RESCHEDULE¦LOUISA¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦2:00PM ¦DOCKET CALL¦EVENT ¦ABBOT ¦ ¦ ¦2011¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +----+-------+-----------+----------+------+----------------------------------¦ ¦12/8¦ ¦PRO SE ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦MOTION ¦STRICKEN ¦ ¦MTN FOR BOND/ ¦ ¦2011¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +----+-------+-----------+----------+------+----------------------------------¦ ¦12/8¦ ¦PRO SE ¦ ¦ ¦MADDOX MTN AND RULE NISI TO ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦MOTION ¦STRICKEN ¦ ¦PRODUCE AND PRESERVE EVIDENCE/ ¦ ¦2011¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +----+-------+-----------+----------+------+----------------------------------¦ ¦12/7¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦SIGNED ORDER ON PRO SE MTN FOR ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦ORDER ¦ ¦ ¦REDUCTION IN BOND -STRICKEN/ ¦ ¦2011¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +----+-------+-----------+----------+------+----------------------------------¦ ¦11/ ¦ ¦PRO SE ¦ ¦ ¦MTN FOR PRODUCTION IN LAYMEN TERMS¦ ¦23/ ¦ ¦MOTION ¦STRICKEN ¦ ¦PRO-SE/ ¦ ¦2011¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +----+-------+-----------+----------+------+----------------------------------¦ ¦11/ ¦ ¦PRO SE ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦21/ ¦ ¦MOTION ¦STRICKEN ¦ ¦MTN FOR REDUCTION OF BOND/ ¦ ¦2011¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +----+-------+-----------+----------+------+----------------------------------¦ ¦11/ ¦ ¦SUBPOENA ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦15/ ¦ ¦DUCES TECUM¦ ¦ ¦AT&T SUBPOENA CNTR/ ¦ ¦2011¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +----+-------+-----------+----------+------+----------------------------------¦ ¦11/ ¦ ¦TRIAL ¦RESCHEDULE¦LOUISA¦ ¦ ¦14/ ¦09:00AM¦DOCKET CALL¦EVENT ¦ABBOT ¦ ¦ ¦2011¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +----+-------+-----------+----------+------+----------------------------------¦ ¦11/1¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦BOND ORDER ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED/ ¦ ¦2011¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +----+-------+-----------+----------+------+----------------------------------¦ ¦10/ ¦ ¦MOTION - TO¦ ¦ ¦DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL ¦ ¦31/ ¦ ¦COMPEL ¦ ¦ ¦INFORMANT/ ¦ ¦2011¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +----+-------+-----------+----------+------+----------------------------------¦ ¦10/ ¦ ¦MOTION - TO¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦31/ ¦ ¦REVEAL DEAL¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦2011¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +----+-------+-----------+----------+------+----------------------------------¦ ¦10/ ¦ ¦PETITION ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦25/ ¦ ¦FOR BOND/ ¦ ¦ ¦110111 @ 920AM/ ¦ ¦2011¦ ¦NISI ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +----+-------+-----------+----------+------+----------------------------------¦ ¦9/22¦ ¦PLEA ¦ ¦LOUISA¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦3:00PM ¦HEARING ¦OTHER ¦ABBOT ¦ ¦ ¦2011¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +----+-------+-----------+----------+------+----------------------------------¦ ¦9/15¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦HOLD ORDER ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦2011¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +----+-------+-----------+----------+------+----------------------------------¦ ¦9/15¦ ¦PLEA ¦RESCHEDULE¦LOUISA¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦10:00AM¦HEARING ¦EVENT ¦ABBOT ¦ ¦ ¦2011¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +----+-------+-----------+----------+------+----------------------------------¦ ¦8/11¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦HOLD ORDER ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦2011¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +----+-------+-----------+----------+------+----------------------------------¦ ¦8/11¦ ¦PLEA ¦RESCHEDULE¦LOUISA¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦10:00AM¦HEARING ¦EVENT ¦ABBOT ¦ ¦ ¦2011¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +----+-------+-----------+----------+------+----------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦MOTION/ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦6/21¦ ¦ORDER FOR ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦PRODUCTION ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦2011¦ ¦OF STATE ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦PRISONER ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +----+-------+-----------+----------+------+----------------------------------¦ ¦6/16¦ ¦PLEA ¦RESCHEDULE¦LOUISA¦ ¦ ¦/ ¦10:00AM¦HEARING ¦EVENT ¦ABBOT ¦ ¦ ¦2011¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +----+-------+-----------+----------+------+----------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦DISCOVERY DISCLOSURE/DEMAND FOR ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦DISCLOSURE OF WITNESS IDENTITIES ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦STATES ¦ ¦ ¦AND INFORMATION/DEMAND FOR WITNESS¦ ¦ ¦ ¦DISCOVERY ¦ ¦ ¦STATEMENTS/DEMAND FOR DISCOVERY ¦ ¦5/19¦ ¦DISCLOSURE ¦ ¦ ¦REGARDING ALIBI/DEMAND FOR ¦ ¦/ ¦ ¦AND DEMAND ¦ ¦ ¦ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY/UST OF ¦ ¦2011¦ ¦FOR ¦ ¦ ¦WITNESSES/NTC OF INTENT TO ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦RECIPROCAL ¦ ¦ ¦PROSECUTE DEF AS A RECIDMST/NTC OF¦ ¦ ¦ ¦DISCOVERY ¦ ¦ ¦INTENT TO OFFER EVIDENCE IN ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦AGGRAVATION OF PUNISHMENT/NTC OF ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦STATE"S INTENT TO INTRODUCE ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦EVIDENCE OF SIMIALR ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦TRANSACTIONS AND MTN TO ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦ALLOW SUCH EVIDENCE/CERT OF¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦SERV/ ¦ +-----------------+-----------------------++------+---------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦STATUS ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦LOUISA¦ ¦ ¦4/12/2011¦10:00AM¦CONFERENCE ¦¦ABBOT ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦HEARING ¦¦ ¦ ¦ +---------+-------+-----------------------++------+---------------------------¦ ¦3/16/2011¦ ¦PRO SE LETTER RECEIVED ¦¦ ¦REQUEST ENTIRE FILE/ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦AND CLERKS RESPONSE ¦¦ ¦ ¦ +---------+-------+-----------------------++------+---------------------------¦ ¦3/9/2011 ¦ ¦CONSOLIDATED MOTIONS ¦¦ ¦CERT OF SERV/ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦PACKAGE ¦¦ ¦ ¦ +---------+-------+-----------------------++------+---------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦PRETRIAL ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦3/8/2011 ¦ ¦SCHEDULING ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ORDER ¦¦ ¦ ¦ +---------+-------+-----------------------++------+---------------------------¦ ¦3/3/2011 ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦Initial Case Screening / ¦ ¦10:33:49 ¦ ¦SCREENING ¦¦ ¦Scanning ¦ ¦AM ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ +---------+-------+-----------------------++------+---------------------------¦ ¦3/2/2011 ¦ ¦INDICTMENT ¦¦ ¦ ¦ +---------+-------+-----------------------++------+---------------------------¦ ¦10/19/ ¦ ¦ENTRY OF APPEARANCE ¦¦ ¦J. FOGLE/ ¦ ¦2010 ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ +---------+-------+-----------------------++------+---------------------------¦ ¦10/19/ ¦ ¦DEFENDANTS ELECTION TO ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦2010 ¦ ¦PROCEED UNDER OCGA ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦17-16-1 ¦¦ ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
[Return to Topi
Home | Magistrate Court | Probate Court | State Court | Superior Court | Juueniie Court | Court Forms | Court Fees
© Copyright 2012 - Chatham County Courts