Allen v. Webb et al

Filing 9

OPINION AND ORDER. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on December 5, 2016. (src)

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

PLAINTIFF

ROBERT E. ALLEN
CASE NO. 3:16-CV-03098

v.

JUDGE GORDON WEBB, Circuit
Court, Boone County, Arkansas; and
DEPUTY PROSECUTOR CHRISTOPHER
DEFENDANTS

CARTER, Boone County, Arkansas
OPINION AND ORDER

This is a civil rights action filed by Plaintiff Robert E. Allen pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis.
This matter is presently before the Court for initial screening of Plaintiff's pleading
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that this
action should be summarily dismissed pursuant to Section 1915A and Section
1915(e)(2)(B).
I. BACKGROUND

According to the allegations of the Complaint (Doc. 1), the Defendants have
obstructed justice, committed malfeasance in office, violated ethics laws, and violated other
state and federal laws by altering court documents. Plaintiff states he was prosecuted "as
a case from 2015 rather than July 201O." He alleges Defendants "put on the 'ignorance
of the law role', and 'the I'm above the law role.'"
As relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages; the reversal of his
conviction; dismissal of the criminal case; and, finally he asks that the Defendants be

-1-

removed from their offices by impeachment.
II. DISCUSSION

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (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: (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. 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 prose complaint,
however inartfully pleaded, ...to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted
by lawyers."' Jackson

v.

Nixon, 747 F.3d 5 37, 541 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Erickson

v.

Pardus, 551 U.S.89, 94 (2007)).

First, the claims against Judge Gordon Webb are subject to dismissal. The claims
against Judge Webb arise out of a criminal action over which he presided. Judge Webb
is immune from suit. Mireles

v.

Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991) ("Judicial immunity is an

immunity from suit, not just from ultimate assessment of damages."); see also Duty

v.

City

of Springdale, 42 F.3d 460, 462 (8th Cir. 1994). "Judges performing judicial functions

enjoy absolute immunity from§ 198 3 liability." Robinson

v.

Freeze, 15 F.3d 107, 108 (8th

Cir.1994). "A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in

-

2

-

error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority." Stump v. Sparkman, 435
U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978). Judicial immunity is overcome if:

(1) the judge's challenged

action is non-judicial; or (2) the judge's action, although judicial in nature, were taken in the
complete absence of all jurisdiction.
_

Mireles, 502 U.S. at 11.

It is clear from the

allegations of the Complaint that neither exception applies here.
Second, Christopher Carter, the prosecuting attorney, is immune from suit. The
United States Supreme Court in Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (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." Id., 424 U.S.
at 427. This immunity extends to all acts that are "intimately associated with the judicial
phase of the criminal process." Id., 424 U.S. at 430; see also Buckleyv. 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 Defendant prosecuting attorney is entitled to absolute
immunity.

See also Brodnicki v. City of Omaha, 75 F.3d 1261 (8th Cir. 1996) (county

prosecutors entitled to absolute immunity from suit).
To the extent the Complaint seeks injunctive relief, the claim is not cognizable.
While the Supreme Court has not held that this immunity insulates prosecutors from
declaratory or injunctive relief, see Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1984), a plaintiff must
show some substantial likelihood that the past conduct alleged to be illegal will recur.
Plaintiff can make no such showing here. Further, injunctive relief is not appropriatewhere

-3-

an adequate remedy under state law exists. Id., 466 U.S. at 542 & n.22. See also Bonner
v.

Circuit Court of St. Louis, 526 F.2d 1331, 1336 (8th Cir. 1975).

Ill. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, IT IS ORDERED that this matter is DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) - because Plaintiff's claims are
frivolous and/or fail to state claims upon
IT IS SO ORDERED on this

�

Q

ich relief may be granted.
day of De

mb r, 2016.

OOKS
ES DISTRICT JUDGE

-4-