Tasby v. Faulk et al
Filing
14
OPINION AND ORDER re 1 PRO SE PRISONER COMPLAINT filed by Cartier D Tasby. This case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(iii). Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 9/1/15. (cc: Cartier D Tasby). (cer)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
CARTIER D. TASBY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
RODNEY FAULK, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO. 1:15-CV-180
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the complaint filed by
Plaintiff, Cartier D. Tasby, a pro se prisoner, on July 10, 2015.
(DE 1.) For the reasons set forth below, the court DISMISSES this
case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) because both Rodney
L. Faulk and Shannon K. Wright have prosecutorial immunity.
DISCUSSION
In this case, Tasby sues Rodney Faulk and Shannon Wright, both
Grant County prosecuting attorneys. Tasby alleges these prosecutors
are each separately prosecuting cases against him for the same
offense, subjecting him to double jeopardy. Tasby seeks money
damages against both prosecutors and also requests the court to
intervene in his ongoing state court prosecutions.
Tasby cannot recover money damages against either prosecutor
in this case. “[I]n initiating a prosecution and in presenting the
State’s case, the prosecutor is immune from a civil suit for
damages under § 1983.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431
(1976). “Absolute immunity shields prosecutors even if they act
maliciously, unreasonably, without probable cause, or even on the
basis of false testimony or evidence.” Cooper v. Parrish, 203 F.3d
937, 947 (6th Cir. 2000) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
Moreover, claims for defamation are not actionable under § 1983.
See Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 712 (1976) (“[W]e hold that the
interest in reputation asserted in this case is neither ‘liberty’
nor ‘property’ guaranteed against state deprivation without due
process of law.”)
Nor can Tasby have this court intervene in his criminal cases
pending in the State of Indiana. To the extent Tasby is attempting
to have his conviction invalidated or otherwise obtain release from
prison, he must pursue such relief in a habeas proceeding under 28
U.S.C. § 2254, subject to the requirements of the Anti-Terrorism
and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254; Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 488 (1973) (habeas
corpus is the exclusive remedy for a state prisoner who challenges
the fact or duration of his confinement).
Though it is usually necessary to permit a plaintiff the
opportunity to file an amended complaint when a case is dismissed
sua sponte, see Luevano v. Wal-Mart, 722 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir. 2013),
that is unnecessary where the amendment would be futile. Hukic v.
Aurora Loan Servs., 588 F.3d 420, 432 (7th Cir. 2009) (“[C]ourts
have broad discretion to deny leave to amend where . . . the
amendment would be futile.”) Such is the case here because no
amendment could cure the fact that Tasby cannot obtain any relief
in a lawsuit against these Grant County prosecutors.
Therefore
this case must be dismissed.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court DISMISSES this case
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) because Rodney Faulk and
Shannon Wright have prosecutorial immunity.
DATED: September 1, 2015
/s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United State District Court
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?