Roberson v. Doe

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

KENNETH EARL ROBERSON,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:23-cv-760-CLM-GMB

JOHN DOE, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The magistrate judge has entered a report, recommending the court

dismiss this case without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) for failing to

state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Doc. 20). Plaintiff Kenneth

Earl Roberson has filed a response to the report and recommendation (doc. 21),

which the court construes as objections, as well as several supplements to his

response (docs. 22, 23, 24, 25, 26). For the reasons stated within, the court will

OVERRULE Roberson’s objections, ADOPT the magistrate judge’s report,

ACCEPT the recommendation, and DISMISS this case WITHOUT

PREJUDICE.

Background

Roberson’s amended complaint alleges that on February 10, 2023, he

“was handed a warrant for failure to appear and seized.” (Doc. 17, p. 3). On

February 21, 2023, Roberson receive an order of commitment to jail, which

listed 9 cases in the Municipal Court of Huntsville, Alabama that Roberson

had been sentenced to serve various terms of imprisonment for. (Id., pp. 3, 8).

Roberson was charged with 4th degree theft of property in Case No. 11115467

and sentenced to 365 days with 1 day of jail credit. (Id., p. 8). Six of Roberson’s

other sentences were to run concurrent with the sentence in Case No.

11115467. (Id.). But the order of commitment did not say if Roberson’s 365 day

sentence for 4th degree theft of property in Case No. 11113912 was concurrent

or consecutive with the sentence in Case No. 11115467. (Id.). The order also

did not say when Roberson’s sentence was to begin. (Id.).

Roberson says that he should have been given the ability to turn himself

in. (Id., p. 4). Roberson also says that the order of commitment is void and that

Defendant Officer Fields imposed her own personal will to detain him because

the order (a) left blank the field for date/time sentence begins, and (b) didn’t

explain whether the sentence in Case No. 11113912 was to be served

concurrent or consecutive to the sentence in Case No. 11115467. (Id. pp. 4–6).

He also asserts that Fields improperly detained him because she did not have

a warrant. (Id., p. 4).

The magistrate judge recommends that the court dismiss Roberson’s

claims for failure to state a claim. The magistrate judge noted that state court

records show that Roberson appealed his sentences in both municipal court

cases 11113912 and 11115467 and that the municipal court released Roberson

on bond pending appeal in both cases on June 22, 2021. (Doc. 20, p. 5). After

Roberson failed to appear at trial, the circuit court remanded both cases to the

municipal court on February 22, 2022. (Id.). Because Roberson had been

sentenced to 365 days in jail and was simply out on bond pending appeal when

Fields detained him, the magistrate judge found that Roberson’s claim that

Fields “imposed her own personal will” in detaining him did not state a claim

for relief against Fields in her individual capacity. (Id., p. 9). The magistrate

judge found that the Eleventh Amendment barred Roberson’s official capacity

claims against Fields. (Id., pp. 8–9). And the magistrate judge recommended

that the court dismiss the claims against the other Defendants because

Roberson did not bring any specific claims against them. (Id., pp. 7–8).

Discussion

Roberson raises several objections to the report and recommendation.

The court will address each objection in turn.

1. Roberson first objects to the magistrate judge screening his complaint

under the Prison Litigation Reform Act relying on the International Covenant

on Civil and Political Rights to support this objection. (Doc. 21, pp. 2–3). The

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights creates no judicially

enforceable individual rights and is not binding on federal courts. See United

States v. Duarte-Acero, 296 F.3d 1277, 1283 (11th Cir. 2002). In contrast, the

Prison Litigation Reform Act requires this court to screen a prisoner’s

complaint “as soon as practicable” and dismiss the complaint if it “fails to state

a claim upon which relief may be granted.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. So the court

overrules this objection.

2. Roberson next objects to the order of commitment to jail’s failure to

explain whether the sentence in Case No. 11113912 was to be served

concurrently or consecutively with the sentence in Case No. 11115467. (Doc.

21, pp. 4–6). He also objects to the magistrate judge not commenting on

whether the sentence in Case No. 11156070, which the order of commitment

said wasn’t set to be tried until March 2023, was to be concurrent or

consecutive to his other sentences. (Id., p. 4).

Neither Officer Fields nor any of the other Defendants drafted the order

of commitment to jail. (Doc. 17, p. 8). So Roberson hasn’t shown that they can

be held liable for the order’s failure to specify whether the sentence in Case No.

11113912 was to run concurrent with the sentence in Case No. 11115467. And

Roberson’s complaint and the state court record make clear that Roberson

hadn’t completed his sentence for any of the municipal court cases listed in the

order of commitment. So the issue over how to calculate Roberson’s sentence

didn’t affect Officer Fields’ ability to detain Roberson under the order of

commitment to jail. As for Case No. 11156070, an exhibit Roberson recently

submitted shows that he was found guilty of obstructing governmental

operations and sentenced to 45 days in jail with his sentence to run concurrent

with the sentence in Case No. 11113912. (Doc. 24, p. 9). Roberson doesn’t

explain how this sentence affects his claims or why the magistrate judge erred

in not mentioning this sentence in the report and recommendation.

Roberson’s objections instead suggest that he wishes for this court to

issue a declaratory judgment that interprets his sentences for all his state

court convictions as running concurrent to the sentence in Case No. 11115467.

This court cannot issue advisory opinions. And a claim that officials are

impermissibly treating a concurrent sentence as a consecutive one must be

raised in a petition for writ of habeas corpus, not a § 1983 action. See Rueb v.

Brown, 504 F. App’x 720, 722–23 (10th Cir. 2012). So the court overrules these

objections.

3. Roberson also says that the state court records the magistrate judge

cited show that he was improperly arrested without an arrest warrant before

he was found guilty of his municipal court offenses. (Docs. 22, 23, 24, 25). So

Roberson seeks to amend his complaint to add false arrest claims against Jaron

Medford, the officer who swore out the criminal complaint against Roberson in

Case No. 11113912. (Doc. 20-1, p. 4). According to Roberson, “without the

foundational warrant all other warrants are fruit of a poisoned tree in violation

of all claims asserted by” Roberson. (Doc. 25, p. 7).

The court will not grant Roberson leave to file a second amended

complaint because his proposed amendment of adding Medford as a Defendant

would be futile. “To succeed on a false-arrest claim, a plaintiff must establish

(1) a lack of probable cause, and (2) an arrest.” Brooks v. Miller, 78 F.4th 1267,

1281 (11th Cir. 2023). “Probable cause exists when a reasonable officer could

conclude that there is a substantial chance of criminal activity,” and “is an

absolute bar to a § 1983 false-arrest claim.” Id. (cleaned up).

Roberson says that Medford falsely arrested and improperly initiated

criminal proceedings against him because he didn’t have an arrest warrant.

But while “an arrest conducted in a public place must be supported by probable

cause, . . . it does not require a warrant.” McClish v. Nugent, 483 F.3d 1231,

1238 (11th Cir. 2007). And the state court records that Roberson relies on to

say that Medford improperly arrested him without an arrest warrant show

that Medford (a) arrested Roberson in a public place, and (b) had probable

cause to arrest Roberson for 4th degree theft of property. In the criminal

complaint against Roberson, Medford says that Roberson was intoxicated,

belligerent, and harassing the clerk at a Mapco. (Doc. 20-1, p. 4). Roberson then

went outside to speak to officers, was arrested for other charges, and searched.

(Id.). The search revealed a concealed 16 oz can of beer still cold to the touch

and that Roberson had not paid for. (Id.). Roberson hasn’t disputed the

accuracy of Medford’s description of his arrest. Because Medford had probable

cause to arrest Roberson, he didn’t violate the Fourth Amendment by arresting

Roberson in a public place without a warrant. So the court will not grant

Roberson leave to amend his complaint to add claims against Medford and will

overrule any objections related to the initial arrest that led to the charge in

Case No. 11113912.

4. Roberson’s latest filing objects to the magistrate judge taking judicial

notice of his state court records. (Doc. 26). It was appropriate for the magistrate

judge to take judicial notice of Roberson’s state court records, which clarified

why Officer Fields was executing the order of commitment to jail on Roberson.

See Grider v. Cook, 522 F. App’x 544, 546 n.2 (11th Cir. 2013) ([T]he district

court was permitted to take judicial notice of Grider’s state court criminal

proceedings.”); Keith v. Dekalb Cty., Ga., 749 F.3d 1034, 1041 & n.18 (11th Cir.

2014) (taking judicial notice of the Dekalb County Superior Online Judicial

System because it created “a more complete picture” of “Adan’s incarceration

at the Jail.”). So the court overrules this objection.

To sum up, none of Roberson’s filings in response to the report and

recommendation undermine the magistrate judge’s determination that

Roberson’s amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted. To the extent that Roberson raises other objections not specifically

addressed in this opinion, they (a) do not show that magistrate judge erred in

recommending that the court dismiss Roberson’s amended complaint, or (b)

establish that Roberson could cure his pleading deficiencies in a second

amended complaint. So the court OVERRULES Roberson’s objections.

Conclusion

After considering the record and the magistrate judge’s report, the court

ADOPTS the report and ACCEPTS the recommendation. Consistent with

that recommendation and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the court DISMISSES this

case WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failing to state a claim upon which relief

can be granted.

The court will enter a separate final judgment that closes this case.

Done on July 30, 2024.

nt MAZE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE