Fowlkes v. Hanlon

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake on 5/12/14. (5/12/14)(amf, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
SEAN DARNELL FOWLKES,
Plaintiff

*
*

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. CCB-14-1270
*

MICHAEL HANLON,
Defendant

*
******
MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff brings this self- represented action against Assistant United States Attorney
Michael Hanlon.

ECF No. 1. Plaintiff appears to be indigent and his motion for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) shall be granted.
Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that it shall be dismissed. The defense
of absolute immunity extends to Aofficials whose special functions or constitutional status
requires complete protection from suit.@ Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 807 (1982).
Prosecuting attorneys are quasi-judicial officers who enjoy absolute immunity when performing
prosecutorial, as opposed to investigative or administrative functions. See Imbler v. Pachtman,
424 U.S. 409, 430-31 (1976). Absolute immunity is designed to protect judicial process, thus
the inquiry is whether the prosecutor's actions are closely associated with judicial process. See
Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 492 (1991).

A review of plaintiff's allegations against the

prosecutor show that the acts complained of are prosecutorial in nature and associated with the
judicial process. Plaintiff's lawsuit is exactly the type of action that the courts recognized as
necessitating the limited doctrine of absolute immunity. In apparent disagreement with the
decisions reached during his criminal proceedings, this self-represented litigant has turned to this
1

civil forum to assert allegations of unconstitutional acts against a federal prosecutor. Because
immunity precludes plaintiff's recovery, sua sponte dismissal of plaintiff's claim is appropriate.
A separate Order shall be entered reflecting the ruling set forth herein.

May 12, 2014
Date

/s/
Catherine C. Blake
United States District Judge

2