Foster v. Guillou et al (INMATE 1), No. 2:2022cv00069 - Document 11 (M.D. Ala. 2022)

Court Description: OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 8/10/2022. (am, )

Download PDF
Foster v. Guillou et al (INMATE 1) Doc. 11 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION DANNY FOSTER, SR., ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM M. GUILLOU, et al., Defendants. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:22cv69-MHT (WO) OPINION Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), plaintiff, an inmate, filed this lawsuit asserting that he suffered a false arrest, an illegal search, and other constitutional hands of defendants. court on the violations at the This lawsuit is now before the recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge that plaintiff’s case be dismissed. Also before the court are plaintiff’s objections to the recommendation. review of the After record, an independent the court and de novo concludes that Dockets.Justia.com plaintiff’s exception objections and the should be magistrate overruled judge’s with one recommendation adopted. In his objections to the recommendation, plaintiff contends that the ADOC’s records, upon which the recommendation relies in small part, are “incorrect and misleading.” Id. convicted assault of at 3. He and explains discharging that a gun 1996 and occupied building or vehicle in judicial records to support this he was into an submits assertion. See Judicial Record (Doc. 8-3); Randolph County Order (Doc. 8-4). Further, plaintiff states that, shortly after he was sentenced for those offenses, he escaped from the Randolph until County, February Alabama 8, Jail 2013, when and he remained was at large arrested in Florida. See Objection (Doc. 8) at 3; Randolph County Order 8-5). (Doc. 8-4); Broward County Arrest Form (Doc. He adds that, on February 11, 2013, a state trial judge in Randolph County illegally ordered him to 2 start serving his sentences for those offenses. See Objection (Doc. 8) at 3; Randolph County Order (Doc. 8-4). He contends that his arrest and ensuing detention were illegal because the agents pinged his cell phone without a warrant. See Objection (Doc. 8) at 4–5. This objection is sustained solely to the extent that the court notices that plaintiff’s convictions for assault and discharging a gun into an occupied building or vehicle were entered in 1996. not change the court’s analysis. However, this does The magistrate judge determined that plaintiff would have known of the facts necessary to assert his false arrest, unlawful imprisonment, and illegal search claims no later than November 17, 2017--the date on which he was sentenced for murder and after which he no longer had a pending prosecution in the state trial court. Recommendation (Doc. 7) at 6. See Report and Plaintiff’s above-discussed clarification of dates does not change this analysis. Thus, this 3 objection is otherwise overruled. An appropriate judgment will be entered. DONE, this the 10th day of August, 2022. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.