Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Andriatti v. Warren

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division

July 25, 2014

TESS HOLLIS ANDRIATTI, Petitioner,
v.
SHERIFF NEIL WARREN, Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER

WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, Jr., District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Tess Hollis Andriatti's ("Petitioner") pro se objections [6] to Magistrate Judge Gerrilyn G. Brill's Final Report and Recommendation [3] ("R&R"). Also before the Court are Petitioner's Motion to Amend Defendants [5], Motion for the Court to Order and Compel Release [8], Motion for Default Judgment against Neil Warren, Cobb County Sheriff ("Warren") [9], and Motion for Default Judgment against the State of Georgia [10].

I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner, proceeding pro se , is an inmate at the Cobb County Adult Detention Center in Marietta, Georgia. On December 4, 2013, Petitioner filed her Petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the "Petition").[1] In the Petition, Petitioner contends she is "imprisoned against her will" for "illegal" charges. (Pet. at 1.) According to Petitioner, in October 2009, she was "illegally charged but never indicted" with five felony counts of first degree forgery, four counts of making false statements, and one count of "Georgia Rico." (Id.) Petitioner asserts she was denied bond for "a victimless crime" and that "the entire manner constitutes a conspiracy against [her] rights' and [a] denial of due process.'" (Id.) Petitioner also asserts that the State of Georgia lacks "in personam" [sic] "jurisdiction" to prosecute her because she is a woman. (Id. at 2.) Petitioner seeks release and expungement of her criminal record.

On February 3, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued her R&R, reviewing the Petition under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases ("Rule 4"), recommending that the Petition be dismissed without prejudice because it "plainly appears... that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court."[2] The Magistrate Judge also recommended that the Court not grant Petitioner a certificate of appealability ("COA").

On February 3, 2013, Petitioner filed an "Amendments [sic] to Add Defendants, " which the Court construes as her Motion to Add Defendants [5]. Petitioner seeks to add: Judge Dorothy Robinson; Sheriff Neal Warren; Cobb County, Georgia; Victor Reynols, "D.A.;" and Rebecca Keaton, "Superior Court Clerk."

On February 14, 2014, Petitioner filed her objections [6] to the R&R. On April 23, 2014, Petitioner filed a Motion for the Court to Order and Compel Release [8]. On May 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed Motions for Default Judgment [9, 10] against Warren and the State of Georgia[3] for not answering the Petition.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (Supp. IV 2010); Williams v. Wainwright , 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982) (per curiam). A district judge "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). With respect to those findings and recommendations to which objections have not been asserted, the Court must conduct a plain error review of the record. United States v. Slay , 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1050 (1984).

B. Analysis

1. Objections to the R&R

In her objections, Petitioner asserted that she does "not have a pending criminal case" (Obj. at 1) and therefore the Magistrate Judge's application of Younger v. Harris , 401 U.S. 37 (1971), "cannot be used [because] [t]his case is not an open case with pending state criminal prosecution[s] and [Petitioner] is not being held on criminal charges." (Id. at 2.) Petitioner's arguments are unfounded. In her Petition, Petitioner specifically stated that she is presently "imprisoned against her will, " and was "charged... for 5 counts of Felony [sic]." (Pet. at 1.) The Magistrate Judge reasoned that if Petitioner is currently being held on criminal charges, as she asserts in her Petition, then the Court is prohibited by the Younger[4] abstention doctrine from interfering with Petitioner's untried state criminal proceedings

Younger allows a federal court to intervene in a pending state criminal proceeding only under extraordinary circumstances. Those circumstances are: "(1) [that] there is evidence of state proceedings motivated by bad faith, (2) [that] irreparable injury would occur, or (3) [that] there is no adequate alternative state forum where the constitutional issues can be raised." See Hughes v. Attorney General of Fla. , 377 F.3d 1258, 1262 n.4 (11th Cir. 2004) (citing Younger , 401 U.S. at 53-54). The Magistrate Judge found that no exception to the Younger abstention doctrine applies in this action because Petitioner did not allege an irreparable injury ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.