Bohannon-Gatson v. Jones et al
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
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
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.
§ 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
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
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.
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
Arkansas Constitution vests jurisdiction over criminal
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
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
claim against him is dismissed. Any claim against Lemon, anothe~ probation
officer, is dismissed because Bohannon-Gatson doesn't say
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
therefore fail. Rogers v. Bruntrager, 841 F.2d 853, 856 (8th Cir. 198$).
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.
D.P. Marshall Jr. "
United States District Ju~ge
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?