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)

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.