Poole v. State of Georgia

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION

DAVID ROBERT POOLE,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO.: 4:24-cv-200

v.

STATE OF GEORGIA, et al.,

Defendants.

O RDER After a careful de novo review of the entire record, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's October 3, 2024, Report and Recommendation, (doc. 9), to which plaintiff objected, (doc. 10). Poole’s Complaint alleges that he was subjected to “double jeopardy” when he was prosecuted, and ultimately convicted, for unspecified conduct for which he was also subjected to internal prison discipline. (See doc. 1, p. 5.) He requests that the Court “investigate” his allegations and take other unspecified action to address the alleged violation. (See id., p. 6.) The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Complaint be dismissed on multiple independent grounds. (See generally doc. 9.) First, the Magistrate Judge explained that § 1983 cannot be used to challenge the validity of a state court conviction. (Id., pp. 2-3.) Second, he explained that this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the validity of state court judgments, including criminal convictions. (Id., p. 4.) Third, the Magistrate Judge explained that two of the named defendants, the State of Georgia and an individual who appeared to be the prosecutor on Poole’s case, were immune from suit. (Id., pp. 4-5.) Finally, the Magistrate Judge explained that those obstacles notwithstanding, courts have recognized that prison discipline and prosecution do not implicate “double jeopardy.” (Id., pp. 5-6.) Plaintiff’s Objection is not entirely clear. Poole reiterates his contention that his “[p]resent [i]ncarceration” violates the Constitution’s prohibition on double jeopardy. (Doc. 10, p. 1.) He

then contends that the Magistrate Judge did not accept his Complaint’s allegations as true and construe them favorably. (Id., p. 2.) He states: “This Complaint should not be construed as lesser to the law of the U.S. Constitution just because [Plaintiff] is a Pro Se Pleader [sic].” (Id.) He then states that he “has not challenged his conviction of original sentence, he has made a challenge to the sanctions of the court to impose additional sentence for no offense . . . .” (Id.) To the extent that his objections are discernable, they do not undermine the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. Regardless of Poole’s characterization of the penalties imposed by the state court and the prison where he is incarcerated, the Magistrate Judge correctly observed that there is no plausible argument that being subject to prison discipline and criminal prosecution for the same conduct violates the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution. (See doc. 9, p. 6 (quoting

United States v. Simpson, 546 F.3d 394, 398 (6th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted)). It is also clear that the Magistrate Judge applied the correct standard to evaluate Poole’s Complaint. (See id., pp. 1-2.) Therefore, Plaintiff’s Objection is OVERRULED. (Doc. 10.) Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation as its opinion. (Doc. 9.) Poole’s Complaint is DISMISSED. Doc. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case. SO ORDERED, this 14th day of November, 2024.

R. STAN BAKER, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA