Robinson v. Hamm (INMATE 1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION JAMES L. ROBINSON, ) AIS # 121865, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 1:19-CV-39-WKW ) [WO] JOHN HAMM,1 et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER Plaintiff claims that his penitentiary obligations were relieved by a 2018 order in a state habeas corpus proceeding. The order has since been corrected and Plaintiff’s appeals in the state court system have been rejected. Plaintiff now claims that the correction of the order was done in retaliation for his filing of this lawsuit and in violation of an Alabama rule that deprives Alabama trial courts from jurisdiction to review a final judgment after ninety days. Each of Plaintiff’s arguments was expertly addressed by the Magistrate Judge in her well-reasoned Report and Recommendation. (Doc. # 130.) Plaintiff has filed objections to the Recommendation. (Doc. # 131.)

Whether based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine,2 Heck preclusion,3 or other preclusive doctrines such as res judicata or collateral estoppel, it is clear that Plaintiff’s fundamental claim that he ought to be released from prison is not cognizable in this action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons explained by the Magistrate Judge, there are no genuine disputes of material fact regarding any of Plaintiff’s claims, and Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

It is therefore ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. # 131) are OVERRULED.

2. The Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (Doc. # 130) is ADOPTED.

3. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 90) is GRANTED.

A final judgment will be entered separately.

DONE this 11th day of January, 2022.

/s/ W. Keith Watkins UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE