Oliver v. Dean et al
ORDER directing Mr. Oliver to file an amended complaint within thirty days. His failure to comply with this Order could result in the dismissal of his lawsuit. Signed by Magistrate Judge Beth Deere on 7/5/2016. (jak)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CASE NO. 3:16-CV-162-BRW-BD
DEAN, et al.
Plaintiff Artez Oliver, an inmate at the Mississippi County Detention Facility
(“Detention Facility”), filed this lawsuit without the help of a lawyer under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. (Docket entry #1) In his complaint, Mr. Oliver complains that he has been held
at the Detention Facility for more than ninety days without charges. (#2) He seeks
monetary relief from two Defendants. (#2)
There are several problems with this complaint. Mr. Oliver will have an
opportunity to file an amended complaint, however, to address the problems. First, Mr.
Oliver lists “Dean” as a Defendant; however, it is unclear what role Dean played. In one
section of his complaint, he refers to this Defendant as “Captain Dean” holding the
position of “State Prosecuting.” Later in the complaint, however, he refers to this
Defendant as “Catherine Dean.” (#2) If Dean is the prosecutor, the claim will fail
because prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity when they are acting as an advocate
of the state in a criminal prosecution. This includes the initiation and pursuit of a
criminal conviction. Maness v. Distr. Court of Logan Cnty., 495 F.3d 943, 944 (8th Cir.
2007); Brodnicki v. City of Omaha, 75 F.3d 1261, 1266 (8th Cir. 1996). Mr. Oliver must
explain who Dean is and what his or her role is in the alleged constitutional violations in
order to proceed against Defendant Dean.
Second, it is unclear whether there is a state criminal case pending against Mr.
Oliver. As a general rule, federal courts cannot hear constitutional claims when: (1) there
is an ongoing state proceeding; (2) the state proceeding implicates important state
interests; and (3) there is an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise the
constitutional challenges. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-45 (1971); Tony Alamo
Christian Ministries v. Selig, 664 F.3d 1245 (8th Cir. 2012). In his amended complaint,
Mr. Oliver must state whether there is a state criminal charge currently pending against
Third, Mr. Oliver has not stated how Defendant Gladen is personally involved in
any alleged constitutional violations. He must explain Defendant Gladen’s role in the
events underlying this lawsuit.
Mr. Oliver has thirty days to file an amended complaint. His failure to comply
with this Order could result in the dismissal of his lawsuit. Local Rule 5.5.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 5th day of July, 2016.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?