United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Savannah Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
pro se, inmate-plaintiff Joseph Martin McRoberts
brings this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the state
court judge from whom he unsuccessfully tried to obtain
various forms of judicial relief (law-library access, the
discharge of his appointed criminal defense attorney, etc.).
Doc. 1 at 5. He seeks $26, 000 for "emotional distress I
suffered during the time I was incarcerated and violation of
my rights." Id. at 6. Plus he wants the judge
reprimanded and suspended for one year. Id.
preliminary review,  his Complaint must be dismissed with
prejudice. Chatham County Superior Court Chief Judge Michael
L. Karpf is absolutely immune from suit, since McRoberts
alleges nothing beyond activities that fall within his
official function. See Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d
1234, 1239 (11th Cir. 2000) ("Judges are entitled to
absolute immunity for all actions taken in their judicial
capacity. . . .") (citing Stump v. Sparkman,
435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978)); see also Id.
("Absolute judicial immunity applies even when the
judge's acts are in error, malicious, or were in excess
of his or her jurisdiction.") (quotes omitted).
its facial frivolity, plaintiffs Complaint must be DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE and no re-pleading option is warranted.
Dysart v. BankTrust, 516 F.App'x 861, 865 (11th
Cir. 2013) ("[D]istrict court did not err in denying
Dysart's request to amend her complaint because an
amendment would have been futile."); Langlois v.
Traveler's Ins. Co., 401 F.App'x 425, 426-27
(11th Cir. 2010); Simmons v. Edmondson, 225
F.App'x 787, 788-89 (11th Cir. 2007) (district court did
not err in dismissing complaint with prejudice without first
giving plaintiff leave to amend because no amendment could
have overcome the defendants' immunity). Also because of
its frivolity, this case should be recorded as a
"strike" under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g). Finally, the Court DENIES as frivolous
McRoberts' motion for entry of default. Doc. 6.
meanwhile, must pay his $350 filing fee. His furnished
account information shows that he has had a $0.00 average
monthly balance and $0.00 in monthly deposits in his prison
account during the past six months. Doc. 4. He therefore owes
no initial partial filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(b)(1) (requiring an initial fee assessment "when
funds exist, " under a specific 20 percent formula). But
plaintiffs custodian (or designee) shall set aside 20 percent
of all future deposits from his account and forward same 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.
Clerk is DIRECTED to send this Report and R ecommendation
(R&R) to McRoberts' account custodian immediately. In
the event he is transferred to another institution,
plaintiffs 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 plaintiffs 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.
R&R is submitted to the district judge assigned to this
action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this
Court's Local Rule 72.3. Within 14 days of service, any
party may file written objections to this R&R with the
Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be
captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report
and Recommendations." Any request for additional time to
file objections should be filed with the Clerk for
consideration by the assigned district judge.
the objections period has ended, the Clerk shall submit this
R&R together with any objections to the assigned district
judge. The district judge will review the magistrate
judge's findings and recommendations pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that
failure to timely file objections will result in the waiver
of rights on appeal. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Symonett v.
V.A. Leasing Corp., 648 F.App'x 787, 790 (11th Cir.
2016); Mitchell v. U.S., 612 F.App'x 542, 545
(11th Cir. 2015).
REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED.
 McRoberts proceeds in forma
pauperis (IFP) (doc. 4), so the Court is screening his
case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) to determine
whether he has stated a plausible claim for relief. 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). Whether a
complaint fails to state a claim under §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the same standard applicable
to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). Thompson v. Rundle, 393 F.App'x 675,
678 (11th Cir. 2010).
Thus, the Court must determine whether the Complaint
contains "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true,
to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (quoting Bell Ml. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Section 1915 "accords judges not
only the authority to dismiss a claim based on an
indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual
power to pierce the veil of the complaint's factual
allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual
contentions are clearly baseless." Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1833, 104
L.Ed.2d 338 (1989); Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346,
1349 (11th Cir. 2001); Daker v. Bryson, 2017 WL
242615 at * 3 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 19, 2017).
 Despite the lack of any apparent basis
for viable amendment, plaintiffs opportunity to object to
this Report and Recommendation within 14 days of service
affords him an opportunity to resuscitate his case. He may
also submit an Amended Complaint during that period, if he
believes it would cure the legal defects discussed above.
See Willis v. Darden, 2012 WL 170163 at * 2 n. 3
(S.D. Ga. Jan. 19, 2012) (citing Smith v. Stanley,
2011 WL 1114503 at * 1 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 19, 2011)).
 Plaintiffs are generally required to
pay a filing fee in order to institute a civil action in a
federal district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1914. Indigent
prisoners may avoid prepayment of the filing fee
under 28 U.S.C. ...