Croskey v. Callahan et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER -....IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED [Doc. 2] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel is DENIED as moot. [Doc. 4] IT IS F URTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 USC §1915(e)(2)(B) because defendants are absolutely immune from suit. A separate Order of dismissal will be filed forthwith.. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 11/6/2014. (MRC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
RICHARD G. CALLAHAN, et al.,
No. 4:14-CV-1797 CAS
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. The motion will be granted. Additionally, having reviewed the case, the Court will
dismiss it under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)
Under 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must dismiss a complaint filed in forma
pauperis if the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
Plaintiff brings this Bivens action against Richard Callahan, United States Attorney for
the Eastern District of Missouri; Kenneth Tihen, Assistant United States Attorney; and Tiffany
G. Becker, Assistant United States Attorney. Plaintiff was indicted in this District on several
counts of drug-related crimes. See United States v. Croskey, 4:11-CR-196 JCH (E.D. Mo.).
After two mistrials, the government moved to dismiss the superseding indictment without
prejudice. The Court granted the motion.
Plaintiff alleges that defendants prosecuted her case without the requisite grand jury
proceedings. Plaintiff further alleges that defendants “deliberately withheld evidence, wrongly
procured statements, and fabricated false reports and other evidence, thereby misleading,
misdirecting, and perpetrating fraud upon the court.” Plaintiff says she suffered mental and
physical distress as a result of the criminal process.
Prosecutors are absolutely immune from civil rights actions. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424
U.S. 409, 427 (1976). There is no fraud exception to prosecutorial immunity. Id. at 427-28; In
re NYSE Specialists Securities Litig., 503 F.3d 89, 101 (2d Cir. 2007). As a result, this action
must be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is
GRANTED. [Doc. 2]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel is DENIED as
moot. [Doc. 4]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) because defendants are absolutely immune from suit.
A separate Order of Dismissal will be filed forthwith.
CHARLES A. SHAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 6th day of November, 2014.
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?