Young v. Ethredge et al

Filing 10

OPINION AND ORDER claims against David Ethredge are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on August 18, 2016. (rg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

JAMES YOUNG

v.

PLAINTIFF
CASE NO.: 3:16-CV-03071

DAVID ETHREDGE, Prosecuting
Attorney, Harrison Office, Boone
County; DEPUTY JONES, Investigator/
Detective, Boone County Sheriff's Office;
and INVESTIGATORY MICHAEL EDDINGS,
Sex Offender Detective, Boone County
Sheriff's Office

DEFENDANTS

OPINION AND ORDER

This is a civil rights case filed by the Plaintiff James Young under the provisions of
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff proceeds prose and in forma pauperis. He is incarcerated in
the Boone County Detention Center (BCDC).
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) modified the IFP statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915,
to require the Court to screen complaints for dismissal under§ 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court
must dismiss a complaint, or any portion of it, if it contains claims that: (a) are frivolous or
malicious; (b) fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted ; or (c) seek monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
I. BACKGROUND

According to the allegations of the Complaint (Doc. 2), Plaintiff traveled to Arkansas
on February 1, 2016 , to help his family cut trees. Detectives Jones and Eddings came to
the house and asked questions about Plaintiff not registering as a sex offender. Plaintiff
told the detectives he was not required to register at all.
1

Plaintiff was put under arrest for failure to register and on a warrant out of
Oklahoma . Plaintiff does not believe he was served with the warrant.

Plaintiff was

transported to the BCDC and booked in . Plaintiff believes his constitutional rights have
been violated by this conduct. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages.
The only place in the Complaint (Doc. 2) that Plaintiff mentions Prosecuting Attorney
David Ethredge is by listing him as a Defendant. There is no mention of Mr. Ethredge in
the statement of the claim .

II. DISCUSSION
Under the PLRA, the Court is obligated to screen a case prior to service of process
being issued . A claim is frivolous when 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 At/. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 , 570 (2007). However, the
Court bears in mind that when "evaluating whether a prose plaintiff has asserted sufficient
facts to state a claim , we hold 'a prose 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)).
Plaintiff's claims against David Ethredge are subject to dismissal. First, Plaintiff fails
to mention Defendant Ethredge in the statement of claims and makes no allegations
against him anywhere in the Complaint. Second , the prosecuting attorney is immune from
suit. The United States Supreme Court, in Imbler v. Pachtman , 424 U.S. 409 , 427 (1976),
established 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 . This immunity

2

extends to all acts that are "intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal
process." Id. at 430 ; see a/so Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993) (prosecutor
acting as an advocate forthe 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); Brodnicki v. City of Omaha , 75 F.3d 1261 (8th Cir. 1996) (county
prosecutors were entitled to absolute immunity from suit) .
No cognizable claim is stated against Defendant Ethredge.
Ill. CONCLUSION
The Complaint as against Prosecuting Attorney David Ethredge fails to state a
cognizable claim under § 1983 and is frivolous. Therefore , the claims against David
Ethredge are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii) (IFP
action may be dismissed at any time due to frivolousness or for failure to state a claim).
Claims against the remaining Defendant~ ll remain for further disposition .
IT IS SO ORDERED on this £

day of August, ,

3

6.