Emerson v. Miller
ORDER DISMISSING CASE with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. This dismissal counts as a "strike," and the Court certifies that an ifp appeal from this order and judgment would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Billy Roy Wilson on 8/17/12. (kpr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
LITTLE ROCK DIVISION
NO: 4:12CV00506 BRW
BRIAN S. MILLER
Plaintiff Eric Emerson, currently held at the Pulaski County Detention Facility, filed a pro
se complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (docket entry #1), on August 2, 2012, naming Chief
United States District Judge Brian S. Miller as the only Defendant.1
Before docketing the complaint, or as soon thereafter as practicable, the Court must review
the complaint to identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint if it: (1) is frivolous or
malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)
requires only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
In Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (overruling Conley v. Gibson,
355 U.S. 41 (1967), and setting new standard for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted), the court stated, “a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to
relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
Plaintiff’s complaint also included a request for leave to proceed without prepayment of
filing fees. However, the request contained no financial information regarding Plaintiff’s
institutional trust account, or any specifics as to his assets or income history. To the extent that the
request may be considered a motion, it is denied.
cause of action will not do....Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level,” citing 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216, pp. 235236 (3d ed. 2004). A complaint must contain enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face, not merely conceivable. Twombly at 570. However, a pro se plaintiff's allegations must
be construed liberally. Burke v. North Dakota Dept. of Corr. & Rehab., 294 F.3d 1043, 1043-1044
(8th Cir.2002) (citations omitted).
According to Plaintiff’s complaint, Judge Miller has illegally dismissed all claims brought
by prisoners alleging constitutional violations by state officials. Because Plaintiff has failed to state
a claim for relief, his complaint must be dismissed. "Judges performing judicial functions enjoy
absolute immunity from § 1983 liability." Robinson v. Freeze, 15 F.3d 107, 108 (8th Cir.1994).
Like other forms of official immunity, judicial immunity is an immunity from suit, not just from
ultimate assessment of damages. Mireless v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991). The evaluation of
whether an act of a judge can be considered “judicial” is dependent on the nature of the act itself –
whether the act is a function normally performed by a judge in his judicial capacity. See Forrester
v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 228 (1988); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 362 (1978). Clearly, entering
orders, including orders of dismissal, are acts which are judicial in nature. Accordingly, Judge
Miller is immune from suit, and this complaint must be dismissed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed without prepayment of fees (docket entry #1)
Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted.
This dismissal counts as a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
The Court certifies that an in forma pauperis appeal taken from the order and
judgment dismissing this action is considered frivolous and not in good faith.
DATED this 17th day of August, 2012.
/s/Billy Roy Wilson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?