Wallis v. Sherry et al

Filing 14

ORDER re 2 Complaint filed by Laura Wallis. Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on March 20, 2018. (mjm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION

LAURA WALLIS
v.

PLAINTIFF
Civil No. 2:18-CV-02005

CHRISTINA SHERRY (Public Defender),
DANIEL SHUE (Prosecuting Attorney), and
JASON HUNTER (Prosecuting Attorney)

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
The case is before the Court for preservice screening under the provisions of the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court has the obligation to
screen any complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or
employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed her Complaint on November 27, 2017, in the Eastern District of Arkansas.
(ECF No. 2). The case was transferred to this District on January 9, 2018. (ECF Nos. 7, 8).
Plaintiff alleges her constitutional rights were violated when she was coerced into a guilty
plea by her public defender, Christina Sherry. (ECF No. 2 at 4). Plaintiff further alleges the
prosecutors, Defendants Shue and Hunter, should have been aware that she had already been
convicted of a similar charge in Barling City Court. (ECF No. 2 at 4-5).
Plaintiff proceeds against all Defendants in their official and personal capacities. (ECF
No. 2 at 2). Plaintiff seeks “relief from these charges that are sending me to prison,” as well as
time served. (ECF No. 2 at 6).

1

II. LEGAL STANDARD
Under the PLRA, the Court is obligated to screen the case prior to service of process being
issued. The Court must dismiss a complaint, or any portion of it, if it contains claims that: (1) are
frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or, (2) seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
A claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A claim fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it
does not allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “In evaluating whether a pro se plaintiff has asserted
sufficient facts to state a claim, we hold ‘a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded ... to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Jackson v. Nixon, 747 F.3d 537,
541 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)). Even a pro se Plaintiff
must allege specific facts sufficient to support a claim. Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337
(8th Cir. 1985).
III. ANALYSIS
Plaintiff’s claims against Public Defender Sherry are subject to dismissal. A public
defender does not act under color of state law when performing a lawyer's traditional functions as
counsel to indigent defendants in state criminal proceedings. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S.
312, 325 (1981). Thus, when the claim is merely that the public defender failed to adequately
represent the client in his or her criminal proceedings, it does not state a cognizable claim under §
1983. See Gilbert v. Corcoran, 530 F.2d 820 (8th Cir. 1976) (conclusory allegations of ineffective
assistance of counsel do not state a claim against public defenders under § 1983).
Likewise, Plaintiff’s claims against Prosecutors Shue and Hunter are subject to dismissal.
The United States Supreme Court, in Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431, (1976), established
2

the 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." Id. at 427. 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) (Prosecutor acting as an advocate for the
state in a criminal prosecution is entitled to absolute immunity while a prosecutor acting in an
investigatory or administrative capacity is only entitled to qualified immunity). Based on the
allegations of the complaint, it is clear the prosecuting attorneys are entitled to absolute immunity.
See also Brodnicki v. City of Omaha, 75 F.3d 1261 (8th Cir. 1996) (County prosecutors were
entitled to absolute immunity from suit).
For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of March 2018.

/s/P. K. Holmes, III
P. K. HOLMES, III
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

3