Redford v. Conley

          OPINION AND ORDER

          WILLIAM S. DIJFFEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Janet F. King's Final Report and Recommendation [13] (“R&R”). The R&R recommends the Court dismiss Petitioner Dr. Mike Redford's (“Petitioner”) amended 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition [9]. The R&R also recommends the Court deny as moot Petitioner's “Motion for Disqualification and/or Recusal of Judge William Duffey Jr.” [6]. Also before the Court are Petitioner's Objections to the R&R [18]. Also before the Court are Petitioner's “Motion for Invocation of Discovery Process” [15], “Motion for Appointment of Discovery Counsel” [16], “Motion for Evidentiary Hearing” [17] and “Motion for Jury Trial” [19] (collectively, “Post-R&R Motions”).

         I. BACKGROUND

         A. Facts^[1]

         Petitioner is confined within the Georgia Department of Corrections. He is serving a ten-year sentence for his Douglas County convictions for aggravated stalking.

         On November 2, 2016, Petitioner filed a form petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On December 15, 2016, Petitioner, as directed by the Magistrate Judge, filed his amended petition. In it, Petitioner challenges the termination of his parental rights and appears to challenge a state-court order requiring him to make child support payments. He asserts constitutional violations, child-support harassment, and a conspiracy to convict him for aggravated stalking. (Am. Pet. [9] ¶¶ 11-12). Petitioner seeks a dismissal of his child support obligations, a rescission of Gwinnett County's bench warrant, a refund of previously paid child support and damages related to his student loans, an investigation of Gwinnett County, an injunction against Gwinnett County, and criminal prosecution of certain state officials.

         On December 16, 2016, Petitioner filed his Motion for Disqualification and/or Recusal of Judge William Duffey Jr. (“Motion to Recuse”). Petitioner states that the Court “has manifested partiality and personal bias since 2002 against petitioner and he is a racist.” He states the Court “advocates racial inferiority of blacks [sic] intellectual abilities, a racial superiority opinions manifested over the years his impartiality is reasonably questioned.” He states further that the Court is “in cohort with many state corrupt officials . . . .” (Mot. to Recuse at 1). Petitioner does not offer any evidence to support these accusations.

         On December 28, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued her R&R. The Magistrate Judge determined that Petitioner is currently confined based on his criminal convictions for aggravated stalking, not based on a state domestic-relations contempt order. She found that, to the extent Petitioner is subject to future custody or contempt proceedings based on his state domestic-relations case, the principles in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) require that the Court abstain, because a domestic-relations case involves important state interests and there is an adequate opportunity to raise constitutional challenges through the normal state process. The Magistrate Judge recommends the Court deny Petitioner's Petition, and deny as moot his Motion to Recuse.

         On January 11, 2017 through January 13, 2017, Petitioner filed his Post-R&R Motions, seeking discovery, counsel, an evidentiary hearing, and a jury trial. On January 12, 2017, Petitioner filed his Objections. The Objections consist almost entirely of vague statements and legal standards and citations that do not appear to apply here. (See, e.g., Obj. at 3 (“Magistrate Judge erred by mischaracterizing the nature of Petitioner's Petition, therefore she failed to establish an essential element of the claim.”)).

         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); 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). Where no party has objected to the report and recommendation, the Court conducts only a plain error review of the record. United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam).

         B. Analysis

         1. Mot ...