CA11: Pro se litigant doesn’t sufficiently allege issuing magistrate wasn’t “neutral and detached”

Pro se prisoner’s complaint against the search warrant process in Georgia fails for a multitude of reasons and is legally frivolous. State law on search warrant does not conflict with federal law and he doesn’t sufficiently allege that the issuing magistrate was not neutral and detached nor part of law enforcement apparatus. Hesed-El v. McCord, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 2828 (11th Cir. Jan. 28, 2020)*:

Mr. El’s fourth argument is that Georgia’s scheme for the issuance of warrants conflicts with federal law. Mr. El cites the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2072, which provides that a federal court sitting in diversity must apply federal procedural rules as long as the federal rule does not abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive right. See Lisk v. Lumber One Wood Preserving, LLC, 792 F.3d 1331, 1335 (11th Cir. 2015) (citing Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460, 85 S. Ct. 1136, 14 L. Ed. 2d 8 (1965)). Because Mr. El’s § 1983 action raises the question of whether his arrest was valid as a matter of state law, the Rules Enabling Act does not apply here.

Finally, Mr. El seeks to challenge the District Court’s holding that Shadwick forecloses suit against McCord. The District Court rejected this argument on the ground that Mr. El alleged “no facts setting forth that Defendant McCord lacked independence from law enforcement or was incapable of making a probable cause determination.” Hesed-El v. McCord, No. 1:17-CV-146, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60440, 2019 WL 1441624, at *5 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 29, 2019). Other than one statement that McCord was “assist[ing] law enforcement,” Mr. El presents no argument that she was a “rubber stamp” who “wholly abandon[ed]” any pretext of neutrality. See United States v. Martin, 297 F.3d 1308, 1317-18 (11th Cir. 2002). Mr. El has not shown that this argument is not frivolous.