Reid v. Rogers et al

Filing 6

ORDER re 1 Complaint Referred (42:1983) filed by Marcus Kyle Reid ; claims are frivolous or malicious, fail to state claims upon which relief may be granted, and asserts claims against defendants who are immune from such relief, Plaintiff's Complaint DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915(A); dismissal constitute a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Clerk is directed to place a strike flag on the case. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on April 13, 2016. (cnn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION

MARCUS KYLE REID
v.

PLAINTIFF
Case No. 1:16-cv-01018

JEFF ROGERS, Prosecuting Attorney,
Union County; TENILE GILRIETH, 1 Deputy
Prosecutor; TOMMY REED, Public
Defender; and DEBRA REID, Ex-wife

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
On March 8, 2016, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis
and pro se, filed this lawsuit alleging that the prosecutor’s office in Union County, Arkansas
filed false charges against him depriving him of his freedom. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff is currently
an inmate of the Arkansas Department of Correction–East Arkansas Regional Unit. Before the
Court is the issue of preservice screening pursuant to the provisions of the Prison Litigation
Reform Act (“PLRA”). The PLRA provides that the Court shall review complaints in civil
actions in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a
governmental entity to determine if the matter shall proceed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff claims that, after showing the Union County Prosecutor’s Office clear and
irrefutable proof of his innocence, the prosecutors have chosen to continue to “hold” charges
against him knowing they are false. ECF No. 1. 2 Plaintiff claims the prosecutor’s office is only
proceeding with the charges because the deputy prosecutor is friends with Plaintiff’s ex-wife.

1

The Court notes that Plaintiff misspelled Defendant Tennille Gilreath’s name in the case caption. The Court will
utilize the proper spelling in this opinion.
2
Plaintiff’s Complaint does not set forth any time frame as to when any of the alleged actions on the part of the
Defendants occurred.

Plaintiff also claims that his public defender was ineffective by not filing any motions on his
behalf. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff has made no allegations against his ex-wife, Debra Reid. ECF
No. 1. Plaintiff asks the Court to: (1) police the prosecutors for abusing their authority; and (2)
sanction his public defender for being ineffective. ECF No. 1.
APPLICABLE LAW
Pursuant to the screening provisions of the PLRA, the Court must determine whether the
causes of action stated in Plaintiff’s Complaint (1) are frivolous or malicious, (2) fail to state
claims upon which relief may be granted, or (3) seek monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915(A). A complaint is frivolous
if it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325
(1989). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a defendant, acting
under color of state law, deprived him of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the United
States Constitution or by federal law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
Prosecuting attorneys are immune from suits filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In Imbeler v.
Pachtman, the United States Supreme Court established absolute immunity of a prosecutor from
a civil suit for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “in initiating a prosecution and in presenting the
State’s case.” 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976). This immunity extends to all acts that are “intimately
associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.” Id. at 430; see also Buckley v.
Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993) (holding that a prosecutor acting as an advocate for the state
in a criminal prosecution is entitled to absolute immunity). While the Supreme Court has not
held that this immunity insulates prosecutors from declaratory or injunctive relief, a Plaintiff
must show serious risk of irreparable harm to state a claim for declaratory or injunctive relief,
see Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 538 (1984), and injunctive relief is not appropriate where an

2

adequate remedy exists under state law, id.; see also Bonner v. Circuit Court of St. Louis, 526
F.2d 1331, 1336 (8th Cir. 1975).
Public defenders are also immune from suit. A § 1983 complaint must allege that each
defendant, acting under color of state law, deprived plaintiff of “rights, privileges or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; see also DuBose
v. Kelly, 187 F.3d 999, 1002 (8th Cir. 1999). A public defender is not acting under color of state
law while representing a plaintiff in his criminal proceeding. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S.
312, 324 (1981) (“A public defender does not act under color of state law when performing a
lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in criminal proceedings.”).
DISCUSSION
In this case, all Plaintiff’s claims presumably stem from his arrest and subsequent
confinement in Union County and now in the East Arkansas Regional Unit of the Arkansas
Department of Correction.

In his Complaint, Plaintiff uses the terms “false charges,”

“prolonging incarceration,” and “depriving the right of freedom.” However, Plaintiff may not
use the civil rights statutes as substitutes for habeas corpus relief. In other words, he cannot seek
declaratory or injunctive relief relating to his confinement or conviction in a § 1983 complaint.
See, e.g., Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 48389 (1994); Preiser v. Rodriquez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973) (habeas corpus is the sole federal
remedy for prisoners attacking the validity of their conviction or confinement). Accordingly, all
of Plaintiff’s claims regarding his confinement in the Arkansas Department of Correction and
Union County fail to state cognizable claims under § 1983.
To the extent that the Complaint seeks monetary damages against Defendants Jeff Rogers
and Tennille Gilreath, those claims fail because they are prosecuting attorneys who are immune
from suit. To the extent the Complaint seeks injunctive relief against Rogers and Gilreath, the
3

claims are not cognizable because Plaintiff has failed to allege any risk of irreparable harm.
Additionally, Plaintiff has not alleged that he exhausted his state remedies regarding his criminal
charges or his incarceration. Therefore, Plaintiff has not stated a cognizable claim for injunctive
relief under § 1983.
Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Tommy Reed fails because Mr. Reed was acting as
the public defender who represented Plaintiff. The law is clear that public defenders acting in
such capacity are immune from suit in a § 1983 lawsuit as they do not act under color of state
law.
Finally, Plaintiff has stated no facts or allegations against his ex-wife in his Complaint.
Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a cause of action against Defendant Debra Reid.
CONCLUSION
Because Plaintiff’s claims are frivolous or malicious, fail to state claims upon which
relief may be granted, and asserts claims against defendants who are immune from such relief,
the Court finds that Plaintiff's Complaint should be and hereby is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915(A). The dismissal of this case
will constitute a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Clerk is directed to place a strike flag on
the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 13th day of April, 2016.

/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge

4