United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER AND FINAL
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
J. BAMR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Jerome Office, confined in the Clayton County Detention
Center in Jonesboro, Georgia, submitted an “affidavit
of truth, ” which the Clerk docketed as a complaint for
mandamus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361. [Doc. 1.]
Plaintiff neither (1) paid the $350.00 filing fee and $50.00
administrative fee, nor (2) sought leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. For the purpose of dismissal only,
Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to proceed in
construed complaint is before the Court for screening. For
the reasons discussed below, the undersigned
RECOMMENDS that this action be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
current record of confinement shows that he is charged with
violating his probation. In his “affidavit of truth,
” Plaintiff states that he attempted “to resolve,
settle, and adjust all claims, charges, and the like offered
in presentment, ” but he received no response from
either (1) Defendant, Clayton County Judge Geronda V. Carter,
or (2) Clayton County District Attorney Tracy Graham Lawson.
[Doc. 1 at 1-4; Doc. 1-1 at 1-4.]
also provides a “certificate of non-response, ”
which indicates that District Attorney Lawson “refused
to send the confirmation that the accounts for
[Plaintiff's criminal cases] had been adjusted and
settled . . . .” [Doc. 1-1 at 3.] Plaintiff seeks $150,
000 in damages from Judge Carter and the “dismissal of
all charges, claims, debts, and the like against
[Plaintiff].” [Doc. 1 at 2-3.] Plaintiff also asks the
Court to order Judge Carter to answer Plaintiff's
“affidavit of truth.” [Id. at 3.]
Furthermore, Plaintiff claims that District Attorney Lawson
and the Clayton County Superior Court owe him $50, 000. [Doc.
1-1 at 4.]
statute, a federal district court may issue a writ of
mandamus only to ‘compel an officer or employee of the
United States or any agency thereof to perform a
duty owed to the plaintiff.' 28 U.S.C. § 1361
(emphasis added).” Brown v. Lewis, 361
Fed.Appx. 51, 56 (11th Cir. Jan. 12, 2010) (per
curiam). Federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to
grant mandamus relief with respect to state and local
officials. See Moye v. Clerk, DeKalb Cty. Super.
Ct., 474 F.2d 1275, 1276 (5th Cir.
1973). Accordingly, Plaintiff may not obtain a
federal writ of mandamus against Judge Carter or District
Attorney Lawson. Judge Carter is also entitled to absolute
immunity. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991)
(per curiam) (“[J]udicial immunity is an immunity from
suit . . . .”).
“Article III of the Constitution limits the
jurisdiction of the federal courts to actual
‘cases' or ‘controversies.' . . . The
purpose of the requirement is readily apparent - to limit the
federal courts to deciding issues presented in an adversary
framework amenable to judicial resolution and to maintain
separation of powers among the three branches of
government.” Miller v. F.C.C., 66 F.3d 1140,
1145 (11th Cir. 1995) (citing Flast v.
Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 94-95 (1968)). As a result of
Article III's cases-or-controversies limitation, federal
courts do not issue advisory opinions. “The prohibition
on advisory opinions is a logical corollary of the case or
controversy requirement. ‘Thus, no justiciable
controversy is presented . . . when the parties are asking
for an advisory opinion . . . .' ” Id. at
1146 (quoting Flast, 392 U.S. at 95).
present action, Plaintiff asserts that (1) his criminal cases
are “accounts” that have been “settled,
” and (2) Clayton County officials' failure to send
“confirmation” means that Plaintiff is entitled
to damages. [Doc. 1 at 1-4; Doc. 1-1 at 1-4.] Plaintiff's
legal theories are similar to those advanced by
“sovereign citizens.” As the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has noted,
“sovereign citizen” legal theories are frivolous.
See United States v. Sterling, 738 F.3d 228, 233 n.1
(11th Cir. 2013). Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to
present a “case” or “controversy”
under Article III of the Constitution. The present action
should be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. Bowen v. First Family Fin. Svcs.,
Inc., 233 F.3d 1331, 1339 (11th Cir. 2000).
reasons stated above, IT IS ORDERED that
Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to proceed in
forma pauperis for the purpose of dismissal only.
IS RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter
Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate the referral
to the undersigned.
IS SO ORDERED, ...