Wright v. Baker

Filing 3

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE AS FRIVOLOUS pursuant to 28 USC 1915A. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr. on 9/11/06. (dr)

Case 1:06-cv-02006-TWT

Document 3

Filed 09/12/2006

FI LEU IN Ut'iAM MM) THOMAS W . THRA .1-i-1 jR .

Page 1 of 4

SEP 1 !2 20%
BY, ~~" ljeput Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES DI ST RI C T C OURT
JAMS N . HATrEN , Clerk

FOR TH E NORTHERN DI STRICT OF GEORGI A ATL ANTA DIV IS ION MICHAEL BERNARD WRIGHT, I.D . # 276855, Plaintiff,
V.

PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS 42 U.S .C . § 1983 CIVIL ACTION NO . 1 :06-CV-2006-TWT

THURBERT E . BAKER, Attorney General, Defendant . ORD E R AND OPINION Plaintiff, Michael Bernard Wright, who is incarcerated at the Wheeler Correctional Facility in Alamo, Georgia, has filed the instant rao se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U .S .C . § 1983 . The matter is presently before the Court for a 28 U.S .C . § I915A review . T . 28 U.S .C . § 1915A Review Pursuant to 28 U .S .C . § 1915A, a federal court is required to conduct an initial screening of a prisoner complaint to determine whether the action is either : (1) frivolous, malicious or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted ; or, (2) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief . A claim is frivolous when it appears from the face of the complaint that the factual allegations

AO 72A (Rev .8/82)

Case 1:06-cv-02006-TWT

Document 3

Filed 09/12/2006

Page 2 of 4

are "clearly baseless" or that the legal theories are "indisputably meritless ." Carroll

v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (1 lth Cir . 1993) . A complaint may be dismissed for
failure to state a claim when it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief . Brower v .

County of Inyo, 489 U .S . 593, 597 (1989) .
In order to state a claim for relief under 42 U .S .C . § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that : (1) an act or omission deprived him of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or a federal statute ; and (2) the act or omission was committed by a person acting under color of state law. See Hale v . Tallap oosa County, 50 F .3d 1579, 158 ( 11th Cir. 1995). II . Plaintiff's Allegations Plaintiff sues Thurbert E . Baker, the Attorney General for the State of Georgia,
alleging that his due process and equal protection rights were violated by

Defendant's legal representation of the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles ("Board") in cases Plaintiff had filed against the Board . Plaintiff does not specify
any particular action by Defendant that violated his rights . Instead, Plaintiff appears

to allege that his rights were violated simply by the fact that Defendant represented

2
AO 72A (Rev . 8182)

Case 1:06-cv-02006-TWT

Document 3

Filed 09/12/2006

Page 3 of 4

the Board in Plaintiff's actions against it in state and federal court . Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, a full pardon, and damages . III . Discussion Initially, the Court notes that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim because he has failed to allege how Defendant has violated his constitutional rights . See Washington v . Bauer, 149 Fed . Appx. 867, 870 (11th Cir . 2005) (holding a § 1983 plaintiff is required to allege with some specificity in his complaint the facts which make out his claim) . See also Fuliman v . Graddick, 739 F .2d 553, 556-57 {11th Cir . 1984) ("In civil rights actions, . . . a complaint will be dismissed as insufficient where the allegations it contains are vague and conclusory .") . The fact that Defendant provided legal representation to the Board is insufficient to show that Plaintiffs rights were violated here . Furthermore, Plaintiff s action is subject to dismissal, as Defendant is immune from suit. "Prosecutors acting within the scope of their prosecutorial duties enjoy an absolute immunity from suit under § 1983 ." Jarallah v. Simmons, No . 06-10879, 2006 WL 2242794 (11 th Cir . Aug . 7, 2006) (citing Imbler v . Pachtman, 424 U .S . 409 (1976)) . "Specifically, the functions of initiating a prosecution and presenting the

3
AO 72A (Rev . 8182)

Case 1:06-cv-02006-TWT

Document 3

Filed 09/12/2006

Page 4 of 4

state's case are within the scope of prosecutorial immunity from a civil suit for . damages under § 1983 ." Id Thus, Defendant is immune from suit in this action . N . Conclusion Based on thee foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the instant action is hereby DISMI SSE D for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U .S .C . § 1915A. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff be granted in forma paWeris status for the purpose of dismissal only .

I T IS S 4 ORDERED this a . day of ~,.j

2006 .

THOMAS W. THRASH, JR . UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4

AO 72A (Rev .8/82)