Terrell v. Fulton County et al, No. 1:2009cv00513 - Document 6 (N.D. Ga. 2009)

Court Description: ORDER AND OPINION denying as moot 5 Motion for TRO, and the case is DISMISSED for failure to state any claim upon which relief may be granted. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 5/22/09. (dr)

Download PDF

FILED IN CHAMBERS THOMAS W. THRASH JR. U. S. D. C. Atlanta MAY 2 a 2009 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEO R S N HATr , Clerk B _.~ ATLANTA DIVISION Deputy C lerk WILLIE JAMES TERRELL, JR ., GDC No . 0610258, Plaintiff, PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS 42 U .S .C. § 1983 CIVIL ACTION NO . :09-CV-5 1 13-TWT V. FULTON COUNTY, et al ., Defendants. ORDER AND OPINION Willie James Terrell, Jr ., is an inmate in the Fulton County Jail . Terrell filed a five-page Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U .S .C . § 1983 (Doc . 1-1) .1 He appended to that complaint 52 additional pages of material (Doc . 1, Parts 2-8) . Terrell also filed an Affidavit and Authorization for Withdrawal from Inmate Account (Doc . 2) and was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc . 3). Terrell later filed another 135 pages of material (Doc . 4) . For the reasons set forth below, Terrell's complaint must be dismissed . a This is one of four civil rights actions that Terrell filed between December 30, 2008 and March 13, 2009 . See also Terrell v . Grady Menz'l Hosp ., Civ . No . 1 :08-CV-3931 ; Terrell v . Fulton County Conzm'rs Office, Civ. No . 1 :Q9-CV-243 ; and Terrell v. Fulton County, Civ. No. 1 :09-CV-706 . AO 72A (Rev . 8/82) Federal district courts must screen every "complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity [to] identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted ." 28 U .S .C . § 1915A . The Plaintiff has submitted 192 pages of documents as his complaint .2 Terrell complains about the manner in which outgoing and incoming mail is handled at the Fulton County Jail .' Terrell intimates that his constitutional right of access to the courts might be infringed (Doc . 1-1 at 4) . Terrell does not, however, allege that he has suffered any actual injury . As a result, Terrell lacks standing to maintain this lawsuit . Lewis v . Casey, 518 U.S . 343, 349 (1996) . "It 2 Terrell's 192-page submission consists primarily of Terrell's grievances and the Fulton County Jail Grievance Office's responses (Doc . 1, Parts 2-8) and duplicates of material Terrell has filed in 1 :08-CV-3931 (Doc . 4). Additional items include : a letter from an attorney in private practice declining to assist Terrell (Doc . 1-2 at 5), envelopes from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (Dac . 1-2 at 10), an envelope from the National Archives {Doc . 1-5 at 6), and Terrell's resume (Doc . 4-2 at 73). 3 Terrell demands, among other things, that mail service at the Fulton County Jail be restructured in accordance with his extremely detailed instructions, "a federal investigation by the Public Corruption Unit, Postmaster General & Inspector General," and an award of monetary damages in the hundreds of millions of dollars (Doc . 1-1 at 4-5). 2 AO 72A (Rev .8/82) is the role of courts to provide relief to claimants, in individual or class actions, who have suffered, or will imminently suffer, actual harm ; it is not the role of courts, but that of the political branches, to shape the institutions of government in such fashion as to comply with the laws and the Constitution ." Id. It is clear that Terrell believes he is "subject to a governmental institution that is not organized or managed properly ." Id. at 350. It is equally clear that Terreil's belief does not afford him a basis to bring this § 1983 lawsuit. Terrell has failed to state any claim upon which relief may be granted . Terrell's complaint (Doe . 1-1) is DISMI SSED . And Terrell's Application for Injunction by Restraining Order & Declaration (Doe . 5) is DENIED as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED, this j2- day of a.. U , 2009 . A ~' t! THOMAS W. THRASH, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3 AO 72A (Rev . 8/82)

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.