Bohannon-Gatson v. Jones et al

Filing 4

ORDER granting 1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Bohannon-Gatson must pay the $350 filing fee. The Court will not assess an initial fee, but monthly payments should be forwarded to the Clerk in the amount of twenty percent o f the preceeding month's income credited to her prison trust account. The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to the Administrator of the W.C. Dub Brassell Adult Detention Center. Bohannon-Gatson's complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim. Dismissal of this action constitutes a "strike". An in forma pauperis appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 3/17/2014. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
BRENDA BOHANNON-GATSON,
ADC #712141

PLAINTIFF

No. 5:14-cv-65-DPM
No. 5:14-cv-74-DPM

v.

BERLIN C. JONES, Circuit Court Judge,
Jefferson County, Division I; ROBERT
H. WYATT, JR., Circuit Court Judge,
Jefferson County, Division II; BLASIUS
AWONSANG, Parole and Probation
Officer; TONYA LEMONS, Parole and
Probation Officer; GARY AUSTIN,
Public Defender; and ROBERT CORTINEZ,
Public Defender Conflict Attorney

DEFE;NDANTS

ORDER
1. Bohannon-Gatson has filed the same case in two Courts. the United
States Federal Court for the Western District of Arkansas has tran~ferred the
other case here.

Case Nos. 5:14-cv-65-DPM and 5:14-cv-74"-DPM are

consolidated under the earlier case number. FED. R. CIV. P. 42(a); GENERAL
ORDER NO. 39(c).
2. Bohannon-Gatson moves to proceed in forma pauperis, NQ ~. In the six
months before she submitted her application, Bohannon-Gatson had no funds
deposited in her prison trust account. The motion, NQ 1, is therefore granted.

Bohannon-Gatson, however, must pay the $350.00 filing fee.

28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(b). The Court will not assess an initial fee, because Bohannon-Gatson

can't pay one. But each time the amount in her prison trust account exceeds
$10.00, her present custodian-the Administrator of the W.C. Dl\lb Brassell
Adult Detention Center- must send to the Clerk monthly installn}ents in the
amount of twenty percent of the preceding month's income credlited to her
account. Payments should be clearly identified by name and

t~e

number

assigned to this action. The Clerk shall send a copy of this O~der to the
Administrator of the W.C. Dub Brassell Adult Detention Center, 300 East
'

I

Second Ave., Pine Bluff, AR 71601. The duplicative motion to proceed in

forma pauperis in case No. 5:14-cv-74, NQ 2, is denied as moot.

B~cause

the

complaints are essentially identical, the Court will deal with both!, of them in
a single Order.
3. The Court must screen Bohannon-Gatson's complaints. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A. She says her probation/ parole was improperly revoked.; Jones and

Wyatt are both circuit judges, and are absolutely immune from Hability for
damages for their judicial acts, as long as they do not act in the "cl~ar absence
of all jurisdiction." Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (le78). The

2

Arkansas Constitution vests jurisdiction over criminal

case~

such as

Bohannon-Gatson's in the circuit court, so Judges Jones and Wyatt have
absolute immunity. ARK. CONST. amend. 80, § 6.
4. Bohannon-Gatson says that probation officer Awonsang fr1correctly
recommendedrevocationofherprobation. Case No. 5:14-cv-65, Nt 2 at6. She
says Awonsang filed a revocation petition after her probation discharge date.
Assuming Awonsang made the mistake Bohannon-Gatson alleges, f\.wonsang
I

may nonetheless have qualified immunity. Ray v. Pickett, 734 F.2d ~70, 374-75
(8th Cir. 1984). Because filing the petition didn't violate any of ~ohannonGatson's clearly established constitutional rights, Awonsang i!s immune
against suit too. E.g., Entzi v. Redmann, 485 F.3d 998,1002 (8th Cir. ~007). The
I

claim against him is dismissed. Any claim against Lemon, anothe~ probation
officer, is dismissed because Bohannon-Gatson doesn't say

~em on

did

anything unconstitutional.
5. Austin and Cortinez, who are public defenders, didn't ~ct '"under
color of state law"' within the meaning of§ 1983; and the claims against them
I

therefore fail. Rogers v. Bruntrager, 841 F.2d 853, 856 (8th Cir. 198$).

3

***
Bohannon-Gatson' s complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure
to state a claim. Dismissal of this action constitutes a "strike" within the
meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). An in forma

pauperis appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faitq. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(3).

So Ordered.

D.P. Marshall Jr. "
.
United States District Ju~ge

4