Hyde v. Zimmerman
OPINION AND ORDER Dismissing Case With Prejudice because Plaintiff's claims are frivolous and or fail to state claims upon which relief may be granted. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on January 17, 2017. (src)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
Civil No. 5:16-cv-05246
JUDGE STACY ZIMMERMAN,
OPINION AND ORDER
This is a civil rights action filed by Plaintiff pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff proceeds
pro se and in forma pauperis.
The 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).
According to the allegations of the complaint (Doc. 1), Judge Zimmerman was assigned to
his case. However, on May 3, 2013, Judge Zimmerman was ill and another unnamed judge appeared
Plaintiff maintains he was wrongfully found guilty without proof and required to register as
a sex offender. As a result, Plaintiff states his family has suffered.
As relief, Plaintiff asks that his record be cleared so that there are no fines, no probation, and
his name is not on the sex offender registry. Additionally, since he was found guilty without proof,
he asks for an award of damages in the amount of $100,000.
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 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)).
The claims against Judge Stacy Zimmermann are subject to dismissal. Judge Zimmermann
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
§ 1983 liability.” Robinson v. Freeze, 15 F.3d 107, 108 (8th Cir. 1994). “A judge will not be
deprived of immunity because the action [s]he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in
excess of [her] authority.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978).
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 which relief may be granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of January, 2017.
/s/P. K. Holmes, III
P.K. HOLMES, III
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?