United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Savannah Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
K. EPPS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the Court are numerous motions. While several of those
motions were pending, plaintiff Anthony Oliver notified this
Court of his request to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit for a Writ of Mandamus. Doc.
The Court of Appeals denied his motion as frivolous. Doc.
146. The delay in disposing of these motions is the result of
the unusual volume and frequency of filings in this case.
Because of the extent and complexity of the factual
allegations and procedural history, a detailed recitation of
both is warranted.
following facts are based on allegations in Oliver's
complaint and other filings, which at this stage, the Court
accepts as true. Oliver has sued Chatham and Effingham
Counties, their respective sheriffs, an Effingham County
deputy and several other law enforcement officers, contending
he was subjected to excessive force, his free-speech rights
were violated, and he was denied appropriate medical care.
See doc. 1. The alleged violations originate in
Oliver's arrest in January 2017. Id. at 5.
vehicle was stopped by the side of a highway when it was
struck from behind by a black SUV. Doc. 1 at 5-6. Oliver
exited his vehicle and approached the SUV. As he approached,
the driver drew a firearm and pointed it at him. He fled to
his own vehicle and called 911 as he drove away “at low
speed.” Id. The 911 operator informed him that
the vehicle following him was a deputy sheriff, and he
arrived at a roadblock formed by four police vehicles and
“spikes.” Id. He stopped his vehicle,
“activated a TranScend body camera system inside”
it, and remained inside. Id. After “several
minutes” the black SUV struck Oliver's vehicle
deputy driving the black SUV, alleged to be defendant
Franklin Rollins, Jr., directed Oliver to exit the car. Doc.
1 at 7. Oliver complied, and Rollins, otherwise unprovoked,
“kicked [him] in the left side of his face breaking two
of his teeth and causing a large abrasion to his face.”
Id. He was then “jumped on by 8 to 10 various
law enforcement officers who began kicking and striking [him]
with fists and a Billy [sic] club while [he] was
handcuffed.” Id. Several other officers
observed this treatment, but did nothing to intervene on his
behalf. Id. Oliver began to request medical
attention for his injuries, but “due to actions,
policies and procedures, by and through the elected Sheriff,
Defendant Jimmie [sic] McDuffie, ” he received no
medical attention. Id. at 8. He was taken to
“Chatham Jail” where medical staff examined him
and “instructed the jail staff to take [him] to a
nearby hospital.” Id. Despite that directive
and his injuries, and after the personal involvement of
defendant Sheriff Wilcher, he was “booked” into
the jail. Id. at 8-9. Later he was taken to the
hospital where tests revealed he had “sustained injury
to his spine and doctors discovered [his] back was
fractured.” Id. at 10.
seeks compensatory and punitive damages, an injunction
against future wrongful conduct, a court-ordered FBI
investigation, a grand jury indictment, and additional
training for Chatham and Effingham County employees
concerning the proper responses to medical conditions of
arrestees. Id. at 13-14.
County, Sheriff Wilcher, and Deputy Rollins answered
Oliver's Complaint. See doc. 10 (Chatham
County); doc. 11 (Sheriff Wilcher); doc. 12 (Franklin
Rollins, Jr.). After their answers were filed, Oliver,
purporting to act pro se, moved to amend his
Complaint and to “terminate” his attorney, who
had entered an appearance after Oliver filed is complaint
pro se. Doc. 14 (seeking “an immediate order
terminating [his attorney]); doc. 15. At the same time, he
moved “ex parte for a Temporary Restraining Order to
enjoin Defendants from further spoliating evidence.”
Doc. 16. Several days later, his attorney moved to withdraw
from the case. See doc. 17. The Court granted the
withdrawal, noting the other two motions were null when filed
given the prohibition on represented parties filing motions
pro se, but would be considered pending
defendants' responses. Doc. 19.
any responses to Oliver's motions were filed, Effingham
County and Sheriff McDuffie moved to dismiss his Complaint
and for a stay pending resolution of that motion. Docs. 20
& 21. While those motions were pending, Chatham County
and Sheriff Wilcher filed motions to dismiss. Docs. 28 &
29. Oliver then filed a motion to disqualify counsel for
Chatham County and Sheriff Wilcher. Doc. 31. After several
other filings, Chatham County and Sheriff Wilcher moved for
an “order declaring plaintiff Anthony Oliver to be a
vexations litigant, and preventing him from filing new
litigation without leave of court and without posting
security.” Doc. 41.
these motions were pending, Oliver filed further motions
purporting to amend his claims. See doc. 50 at 2
(“[p]ursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, the Plaintiff hereby dismissed Defendant
Jimmie [sic] McDuffie in his individual capacity with his
official capacity to stand whereas Plaintiff seeks only
injunctive relief.”); doc. 51 (“Pursuant to Rule
41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Plaintiff hereby dismisses the Defendant County of Effingham
dismissed without prejudice.”); doc. 52 (withdrawing
his Motion to Strike and Motion for Sanctions). He then
renewed his motions to disqualify Chatham County and Sheriff
Wilcher's counsels and for sanctions. Doc. 63 & 64.
He also moved to strike Chatham County and Wilcher's
Motions to Dismiss. Doc. 67.
any defendant responded to any of those motions, defendant
Franklin Rollins moved to dismiss, contending for the first
time that “[a]t the time of the events giving rise to .
. . Oliver's complaint, [he] served as a Special Deputy
United States Marshal.” Doc. 71. The United States
Attorney, appearing on Rollins' behalf, argued Oliver was
obligated to serve the United States. Id. at 1.
Because Oliver had never properly served him, Rollins was
entitled to dismissal without prejudice. Id. Before
responding to that motion, Oliver again “noticed”
the dismissal of his claims against Chatham County. Doc. 76.
moved to strike the answer filed on his behalf by Chatham
County's counsel (see doc. 12) because he
“did not request representation” from Chatham
County with respect to several claims Oliver asserted, but
that others were “properly defended by the Chatham
County Attorney.” Doc. 77 at 1. “To avoid
prejudice to [Special Deputy United States Marshal]
Rollins' individual interests, ” he and the Chatham
County Attorney moved to strike the answers. Id.
Oliver filed another motion for sanctions, based on alleged
misrepresentation by the Chatham County attorneys that they
represented Rollins, and responded in opposition to
Rollins' motion to dismiss. Doc. 75 at 7 (noting that
“[i]n numerous pleadings, defense attorneys Jonathan
Hart, Jennifer Burns, and Bradford Patrick all claim to be
representing Deputy Rollins, ” and arguing that those
representations constituted “fraud upon the United
States District Court”); doc. 78 (opposition to Rollins
motion to dismiss).
November 8, 2017, Rollins filed his reply in support of his
dismissal motion. Doc. 85. On November 14, Oliver filed a
further response, in the form of a declaration describing
what he contends were medical consequences of Rollins'
tortious conduct; he also declared that he had
“corrected” the service defects identified by
Rollins, by sending a Summons and a copy of the Complaint to
“United States Attorney Jeff Sessions.” Doc. 89
at 3. He reiterated his contention that counsel for Chatham
County and Sheriff Wilcher “misled the court”
that they represented Rollins. Doc. 90.
upon a certified mail receipt submitted with Oliver's
response to his motion to dismiss, Rollins concedes Oliver
had perfected service and withdrew his motion. Doc. 95 at 1.
Although he conceded effective service, Rollins now moved to
dismiss Oliver's Complaint as a sanction for Oliver's
misrepresentation, in his response, that the United States
Attorney had failed to serve him with a copy of a filed
document. Doc. 96. Oliver requested leave to submit a Second
Amended Complaint, to add several defendants, allege
additional violations of his rights which occurred after he
submitted his First Amended Complaint and to recast several
of his claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 as claims pursuant
to Bivins v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau
of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Doc. 97. He has also
responded in opposition to Rollins' sanctions motion, and
moves for sanctions of his own and to strike the offending
filings. Docs 99 & 102. Oliver then submitted another
volley of motions --albeit apparent refilings -- on December
11. Doc. 106 (renewal of motion for PACER access); doc. 108
(renewal of motion to appoint counsel).
filed a “First Amended Complaint” on December 7,
2017. Doc. 103. He then filed a motion to expedite a hearing
on his motion for sanctions against Chatham County Attorneys,
introducing complicated factual allegations concerning
hearings in other cases. See doc. 111 at 2 (alleging
that Oliver has “sent both attorneys subpoena's in
[his] traffic misdemeanour case, ” and alleging
malfeasance during “the hearing on the second writ of
haebus [sic] corpus”). He also requested expedited
discovery. Doc. 112.
County and Sheriff McDuffie moved to dismiss the purported
“First Amended Complaint.” Doc. 117. Oliver then
filed a flurry of documents “noticing” his
dismissal of pending claims, with and without prejudice,
without specifying which version of the Complaint he now
believed operative. See doc. 121 (dismissal as to
Sheriff McDuffie, in his individual capacity); doc. 122
(dismissal of Effingham County); doc. 123(dismissal of
Chatham County). He then moved to withdraw his motions to
disqualify counsel, for sanctions, to obtain a PACER account,
and several other motions. Doc. 128.
more responses and replies followed. Docs. 129 (Effingham
County and Sheriff McDuffie's response to doc. 124), doc.
130 (Oliver's reply to doc. 129), doc. 131 (Oliver's
response to defendant Rollins' motions, including for
sanctions and a protective order). Oliver then
“noticed” the dismissal of his official capacity
claims against Sheriff McDuffie. Doc. 132. Another volley of
responses and replies followed. See docs. 138, 139,
140, 142, & 143. Oliver also purported to
“withdraw” his dismissal of Sheriff Wilcher,
although that dismissal purported to be “with
prejudice.” Compare doc. 118 (dismissal)
with doc. 141 (withdrawal).
recently, defendant Rollins filed a partial motion to
dismiss. Doc. 144. Oliver filed his response on January 22,
2018, doc. 145, and defendant replied on January 29, 2018,
doc. 147. On February 5, 2018, Oliver requested leave to file
a sur-reply; a 15 page motion which attached 54 pages of
“exhibits”. Doc. 151. Finally, he has filed
another “notice” voluntarily dismissing his
claims against Sheriff Wilcher, doc. 165, as well as several
more motions. Doc. 160 (Motion to Transfer Venue); doc. 161
(Motion for a Status Conference); doc. 162 (Motion to Compel
Rule 26(f) Conference); doc. 163 (Motion to Strike Exhibits).
procedural history reflects, many of the motions filed in
this case have been withdrawn and refiled. Withdrawn or not,
the Court discusses the merits of the motions below. By
discussing the merits, the Court expects that, absent a
relevant change in circumstance, no further versions of these
motions will be filed. His motions to withdraw those motions
are, therefore, DENIED as moot. Doc. 87;