Williams v. Roehler
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Plaintiff is granted to and including March 5, 2018, to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Show Cause Response due by 3/5/2018. Signed by U.S. District Senior Judge Sam A. Crow on 2/7/18. Mailed to pro se party Freddie Williams by regular mail (msb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
CASE NO. 18-3024-SAC
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is a civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff, a prisoner, proceeds pro se and his fee status is pending.
The Court has conducted an initial review of the complaint and enters
the following findings and order.
Statutory Screening Standards
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by a prisoner
seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or employee
of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss
a complaint, or any portion of it, if the plaintiff’s claims are
legally frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, or seek monetary damages from a defendant who is immune
from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)-(2).
“To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the
violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United
States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by
a person acting under color of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S.
42, 48 (1988)(citations omitted); Northington v. Jackson, 973 F.2d
1518, 1523 (10th Cir. 1992). A court must liberally construe a pro
se party’s pleadings and will apply “less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.
89, 94 (2007). In addition, a court accepts all well-pleaded
allegations in the complaint as true. Anderson v. Blake, 469 F.3d 910,
913 (10th Cir. 2006). However, “when the allegations in a complaint,
however true, could not raise a claim of entitlement to relief,”
dismissal is appropriate. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 558 (2007).
The sole defendant named in the complaint is the assistant
district attorney who is pursuing criminal charges against the
Prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity for acts taken in
their roles as advocates, such as the decision whether to prosecute
an action, the decision whether probable cause exists, and the
decision on what evidence to present in judicial proceedings. Imbler
v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 425-28 (1976). This immunity is limited
to those actions that “involve the prosecutor’s role as advocate …
rather than his role as administrator or investigative officer….”
Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 491 (1991)(internal quotations and
Plaintiff alleges the defendant violated his constitutional
rights by using false evidence and statements to prosecute him (Doc.
#1, p. 2), pursuing false charges (p. 3), abusing the law (p. 4), and
“misconduct and egregious action displayed in a criminal
proceeding” (p. 7).
Because these acts are closely associated with
her role as an advocate in the criminal proceedings against plaintiff,
the defendant is protected from suit by prosecutorial immunity.
IT IS, THEREFORE, BY THE COURT ORDERED plaintiff is granted to
and including March 5, 2018, to show cause why this matter should not
be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
IT IS SO ORDERED.
This 7th day of February, 2018, at Topeka, Kansas.
S/ Sam A. Crow
SAM A. CROW
U.S. Senior 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?