Hall v. Barnes et al

Filing 4

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Complaint filed by Lemuel Robert Hall, recommending in forma pauperis application be denied and this case be dismissed. Objections to R&R due by 2/18/2010. Signed by Honorable James R. Marschewski on January 27, 2010. (cap)

*'*lef iP','#'*o* 'uJlsilfif
IN THF]LINT|EDSTATESDISTRICTC]OURT WE S T E RNDISTRICTOF ARKANSAS T E XAR KAN A IJIVISION

F E B | ZOto 0
cHFtB,JotNSor{, $ ctERK DEputtcrEnK

u

T,EML]EL ROI]ERTIIALL

PT,AINTIFF

c i v i l N o 'rc- 4Dts
DIS'TRICT UDGE J LINI'I'EI)STA'TH,S I{ARRY II. BARNES;UNITED STATES J BARRY BRYANT; MACIS'I'RA 'I'E UDCE, UNITEDSTATES aITd ASSISTANT A.I'TORNEY WtrNDYL. JOHNSON

DEFENDAN'I'S

R E P O R ' IAND RI]COMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE,IUIICE ' to RobertHall (hereinafter PIrr i rrti flLerrruel , llall), hasfiled a civil riglrtsactionpursuaflt tlre pauperis p r o v i s i o nof 42 tJ.S.C. I 983. Hc hasalsosubmitterl application proceatl s an to in.fonna $ (IF P). The caseis bcforcthc undcrsigned preservice lbr of undertheprovisions the lrr scteening the or fornn pauperisstatute. Orrrcvicw, the coutt is to disnriss complaint, any portionofthe c o n r p l a i nthatis frivolous, l, or a be or malicious, failsto statc claimuponwhichreliel'may granted, sccksmonctaryrclicl'liomadelendantwhoisinurunefrornsuchrelief.2SU.S.C.Sl9l5(cX2XB) BAEKGROUND hdveillegally hekl Hall in thc of Acoo rtl i n gto tJreallegations thc complaint, del'endants Constitution.Ilall alsoallcgcs custody without ail arrcstwarranlin violationof theUuitedStates hc have thatthedel'endiurts alI violated theiroathofoffice with criminalintent.Hc asscrts wasncvcr juryhcaringof allowed attend. rrraintains defendiurts committed the have notifiedof anygrand to He criminaloffenses. Hall to sorvea leffi of i carcerirlion Ilall asscrts ordcrcd hc to Bames, Wit h respect Judge Bryant,Hall prisonwithoutHall overhavingbeenarrested. to in I'edetal With respect Magistratc

alleges actedasoounsel the goverunent case hc for in nuurber 09-4095and arraigned Flalltwicc withoutanarrest warrant.Finally,wilh respect Assistant to Attomey.Tohnson, UnitedStates llall alleges ntade she phoneoallstlueatcning defense witnesscs. relief-, As Hall seeks correction the of violations monetary and dunagcsin the anrount two hundred fifty million dollars. of and A search the court'sCase of Managcment Eleotronic and CascFiling (CM/ECF)databasc revealsllall was the defend:afi Unitetl ,llzrtes Hall, Cr. No. 08-40004-01 A two count tn r,. . indictmenwas liled on January 2008. Theoase assigncd Judge t 9, was to Barnes Judgc and Bryant aruaigncd Hall. The Unitcd States was represented by.lohnsorr. Hall was reprcscnted oourl hy appointed counsel; Firsl by CraigHcnryandthenby JohnIr. Stroud, A five countsupcrcedirg III. itrdictnrenwas filed otr June25, 2008. A pleaagreement entered t was into and variouscounrs dismissed.Hall was scntcnced January12, 2010,to a term of tfucc yearsof unsuperuiscd ol ptobation. Hall filed a noticeof appeal same that day. O nAugust 2009, 27, ltall filcda petition writ ofhabeas for corpus under U.S.C. Z?41. 28 $ T hc cascwasassigned JudgcBanresandrefeffcdto Mdgistrate to ftryant. On Oclrrber 2009, B, Magisl.ratBryantentcrcd reportandrecoffmendation. ts a Magistrate Bryantrecom rended the that writ be denicdand the casedismisscd.The reportzurd rccommenrlatiou adopted Judge was hy Barnes January 2010. Hall filed a noticeo{'appeal January on 8, on I3th, DISCUSSION W e prcliminadly ptovidos rightof actiorr notethat{ 1983 no against federal olficials.A $ 1983complaint mustallege that cachdefendant, actingundercolorofstate law, deprived plaintiff of "rights,privilcges immunities sccured theConstitution laws"of the UnitcdStates. or by and 42 U . S . C , 198J.DuBase Kell.v,187 999(BthCiL.1999).Fcderal v. F.3d officials not acrunder do $
"'

colorof state law. $eee.g, Parker Eoyer,93 .3d445, (8thCir. 1996X I 983redresses v, F 448 only $ iniuriescaused exercisc sometight or privilegecrcatcd state, rule ofconductimposed by of by by b y stirtc. by person whomstate responsible); or is for Gibson UnitetlStates,78l v. F.2d1334, 1343 (9thCir.l 986)("Federal officcrsactifigunder federal authority immunefrom suit undcrsectiorl ate l eB3"). Rath e r, clairnthat a federalofftcial hasviolatcdan individual'sconstitutional a rightsis oonsidered llivent claim. ,!ee Bivensv. Sh UnknownNamedAgentsof Federal Bureauof a M a r c o t l c s , U.S.388,9l S. Ct. 1999, L. Ed. 2d 619 (1971). 'Ihe Suprcnrc 403 29 Couttheldin fJlverrthatwhcn"a {'edoral actingundcrcolorofhis authority" ageut violatcstheConrititutloD, the agefll's victim mayrecovcrdamages agirinst agent.dirdn.T, S. Ct. at 2001. the 9l We will thcteltrro llall's claimsagainst defendants bc underBrvens.T'hc oonstrue to the c l a i m s ncverthele$s arc subject dismissal. to F its t, Judge BamcsandMagistrate Bryantarc immuneftom suit. lt is clcarthe actsHall complaino1-wore takenin connection eitherthecriminalcase thewrit of habcas s acts with or corpus cirse. Bothc*seswerc assigned Jurlge to Bames aspccts thecases and of werehandlcdby Magistrate Bryant. "Ju d g e s cntitledkr absolute judicial immunilyfrom damages thoscaclstakenwhile arc for t h c yateacling theirjudicial in capacity uuless actcd the'olear they in absence ofall jurisdiction."' B o l i nv. Srory,225 F.3d 1234,1239(I Ith Cir. 2}0})(.quoting v. Stump Spurkmun,43.5 349, U.S. S. 3 5 6 - 5 7 , 9 8 fi 1099,55 L,d.2d 331(1978)); (9thCir. L. Ryanv. Ililhy,164F.2d 1325, 1328

1 9 8 5 ) f i u d i c iofficets al imrnunc fromElvens{ype absolutely claim). "This immunity apphes even

-3-

acts wlientlre.jndgc's irs in error.malicious, worein excess his ot herjurisdiction."Bolin,225 of or F . 3 dat I ?39(citingStunp,435 U.S.at 356,98 S. Ct. 1099). T hisimmunityhasbeen heldto barEivens for relicf. Bolin actions dcclaratory injunctive or (l Bankruptcy v. Stttry,?ZlF.3dl?34, 1240-42 lth Cit.2000); Mullis v. UnitedStates Court.litr the 828 F.?d 1385(gth Clir.1987). Moreover, bc cntitledto equitable D i s t .of Nevatla, to relicf; "plaintiffnrustshowthathc hasaninadequate law harm." remedyat anda setious ofirrepalablc risk Mullisv. U.S. ItankrupttyCourtfor Dist.of Nevuda, F.?d 1385, 139?(gthCit. | 987)(citations S2B whereal adequatc onmitted), Equitable rcmedyat law exists. Pulliumt,. relief is not appropriate , 4 \ \ e n , 4 6U . S . 5 2 2 , 5 4 2 & u . 2I2 ,4 S . C t 1 9 7 01 9 8 1 n . 2 2 , 8 0 L . E d . 2 d 5 6 5 ( 1 9 8 4 ) . S ' e e a i . r o 6 0 . & S t e r l i n g (alyin,8l4F.2d571,572(8thCir. 1989).An adequate v. whel the at remedy law exists o$ writ. Mul/is,828 F.2dat actsofthejudicial officer canberevicwed appeal by extraordinaty or
1 3 9 2(citationomitted). Sett ttl.to,Switrer Coan,26l F.3d 985, 991 (1oth Cir. 200l)(adequate v. "standard r c m e d yirt ldw existedwherc requeste<l lcgal lreans Isuch] reliefcould bc obtainedthrough a s post-judgmcnl motion, appeal, rnandamus,prohihition, and/or ccrtiottti rsview of prior p r o c c c d i n g s )Bolin v. Story,225F.3d 1234,1243n. 7 (I lth Cir. 2000)(Noting ; that in the ahsence j o l l udicial irnmunitythc del'endantudges wouldbe entitledto dismissalbccausean adequate rerncdy a t law existed through appellatereview or an extraordinarywrit). Cleatly Hall has an adcquate r c m e d y . Each caseis currently on appealwith the Court of Appeals for thc Eighth Cirouit. S e c o n d ,the claims againstWendyJohnson subjcctto disfiissal. As the AssistantlJniterl ale S t a t e sAttorney proseoutingllall, Johnson is absolutely immrure lionr liability for het corrduct i n t i n r a t e l associated thejudicial y phase proccss. Imhlerv. I'achtmnn,424lL5., with o1'thecriminal See 4 0 9 ,96 S. C}, 984,47 L. Ed. 2d 128(I976X$ l9B3 case); drawer v, Horowitz,F.2d830,834(3d Cir.

-4-

policy rnandates a similar inrmuuity be extended ,8irers ty?c suits). All conduct that in 1iJ76)(public i d e n t i f i e dby l-lall occuflcdwhilc Johnson represented United Stato$ pl'esenting criminalcacd the thc in t o the0ourt.Thus,her conductwas intimatelyassociated with thejudicial phase ofthe criminalproccss a n d sheis clearly irnmuncfiom suit. F u r t h c r m o r e ,a clailr againstJohnsonin her official capacity is a suit againstthe United S t a t e s . e.g.,Kentuclqv. Grahan,4'l3U.S. I59, 166,I05 S. Ct. 3099,87 L. Ed. 2d 114(1985). 5ee n cl:rirr caflflotbe brought againstthe Unitcd Statestnless the Unitetl Stateswaives its sovereign i m m u n i t y and conscntsto he sued. The flnited Stateshas not waived its sovcreign inrnrurrityin l l i t sn.s actions. .l'eae.g., Colanan v. .6sp.u, F.2d I I 84. I I 89 (Bth Cir. 1993);P/ca santv. Lovell, 986 (lir. 1989);Iyilliutrrson UnitedStates, F.2d 368.380 (5th Cir. I 987); 815 8 7 6F.2d78'1 v. ,793 ( 1Oth F A r n s l t e r g Unitell StutLts,l57 .2d,971, v. 980 (9th Cir. 1985). CONCI,USION I therelbre recomrnend the in./onfitt puuperis application deniedandthis cascdismissed that he a s the olairns arc assertedagainst inrlivitluals who are immunc tiom suit. $ee 28 U.S.C. $ l 9 I 5(c)(2)(B)(IFP on aotion,or any portionthcrcol. may he dismissed suchgroundsat any timc). H a l l has fourteen (14) days from receipt ofthe report and recommendationin which t o file written objcctiors pursuant to 28 U.S.C.$ 636(b)(l), fhe failure to tile timely objection$ m u y result in waiver ofthe right to appefllqucstionsof fact, HaIl is reminded that objections m u s t bc both timely and specilic to trigger dc novo review by the district court.

D A T E DthisJ7 dayof Jturuary 20i0.

H O N .JAMESR. MARSCHEWSKI C H I EFUNMED STATESMAGI$TRATE JUT)GE -5-