Griffin v. Durrett et al

Filing 8

OPINION AND ORDER Dismissing Case With Prejudice because the Complaint fails to state a cognizable claim under§ 1983 and is frivolous and/or asserted against an individual immune from suit. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on February 17, 2017. (src)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION JAMES GRIFFIN, JR. V. PLAINTIFF Civil No. 5:16-cv-05274 MATT DURRETT and SETH CREED (Washington County Prosecuting Attorneys) DEFENDANT OPINION AND ORDER This is a civil rights case filed by the Plaintiff, James Griffin , Jr., under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff proceeds prose and in forma pauperis. He is currently incarcerated in the Washington County Jail. The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) modified the IFP statute , 28 U.S.C. § 1915, to requi re the Court to screen complaints for dismissal under§ 1915(e)(2)(8). 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 cla im 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)(8). I. BACKGROUND According to the allegations of the Complaint (Doc. 1), Plaintiff has been incarcerated in first the juvenile detention center, and then the county jail since his arrest on July 6, 2013 . (Doc. 1, p. 4) . Plaintiff alleges he is being kept in jail without a conviction and is therefore being falsely imprisoned . (Doc. 1, p. 5) . On December 2, 2016 , the Court entered an order directing Plaintiff to complete an addendum to provide additional details on is claim . In the addendum, Plaintiff stated he was suing Defendant Creed for postponing court dates (including a trial date) , prosecuting -1 - the same case for more than a year, failing to provide an acceptable plea bargain , and failing to get a conviction on any pending charge . He alleges he is suing Defendant Durrett, as the head of the prosecuting attorney's office, for not enforcing the rules and his rights. Plaintiff further states that he was found to be "mentally incapable," a menace to the public,1 and is held on a $125 ,000 bond . (Doc, 7, p. 1). He further states his bond hearing was denied due to his history of being placed in mental institutions from the time he was seven years of age. As relief, Plaintiff asks for unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. (Doc. 1, p. 5) In his addendum , Plaintiff states he "want[s] out. " (Doc. 1, p. 2) . 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 both Matt Durrett and Seth Creed are subject to dismissal. Prosecuting attorneys are 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 1 The statement "just a minnest to the populace" is interpreted as above. -2- 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 crim inal 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 either Defendant. In his Addendum , Plaintiff asked to be released from incarceration . Plaintiff may not use the civil rights statutes as a substitute for habeas corpus relief. In other words, he cannot seek declaratory or injunctive relief relating to his confinement or conviction. See e.g., Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 , 648 (1997) ; Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 , 483- 89 (1994) ; Preiserv. Rodriquez, 411U .S. 475 , 500 (1973) (habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for prisoners attacking the validity of their conviction or confinement) . Ill. CONCLUSION The Complaint fails to state a cognizable claim under§ 1983 and is frivolous and/or asserted against an individual immune from suit. The case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(l)-(iii) (IFP action may be dismissed at anytime due to frivolousness or for failure to ~tate a claim) . IT IS SO ORDERED this 11_ day of February, 2017.

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?