Wattleton v. Unknown Probation Officer

Background

David Earl Wattleton, representing himself, brought this case against an unknown probation officer, an unknown Federal Bureau of Prisons social worker, Jordan Gayser, and G. Koss. The court considered a Report and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins. The recommendation advised granting the respondents’ motion to dismiss, dismissing Wattleton’s complaint, and denying as moot his application for a writ of mandamus, which is a request for a court order directing an official to perform a required act.

Wattleton’s objections

Wattleton objected to the recommendation. He argued that Magistrate Judge Elkins had improperly changed his filing into a civil case instead of treating it as a habeas petition, and that this happened without his consent. The court rejected that argument, stating that Wattleton had filed an application for a writ of mandamus in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and that this filing started a new civil action.

The court also stated that Magistrate Judge Elkins had considered Wattleton’s arguments for habeas relief. The court agreed that those arguments failed because Wattleton had not properly raised a habeas request, had not shown that he lacked an adequate alternative remedy, and had not challenged the legality of his custody. Wattleton also argued that the court could order habeas relief under Seelig v. United States. The court concluded that Seelig did not undermine the reasons his asserted habeas claim failed.

Ruling

After reviewing the challenged recommendation anew because Wattleton objected, Judge Eric C. Tostrud overruled the objections and accepted the Report and Recommendation. The court granted the respondents’ motion to dismiss, dismissed Wattleton’s complaint, and denied his application for a writ of mandamus as moot. The order states that judgment should be entered accordingly. It does not state whether the complaint’s dismissal was with or without prejudice.

Effect

The order ended the proceedings addressed in this decision: the complaint was dismissed, and the mandamus application was denied as moot. The listed respondents prevailed on the motion to dismiss.