Davenport v. Keith et al

Filing 132

ORDER granting 75 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim of defendants Credle, Lamb, District Attorney's Office and Womble. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 11/6/2014. (Edwards, S.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
NORTHERN DIVISION
No. 2:14-CV-36-D

JONATHAN EDMOND DAVENPORT,
Plaintiff,

v.

)
)
)
)

)

PASQUOTANK COUNTY SHERIFF'S
DEPUTY SAM KEITH, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER

)
)
)
)
)

On August 22, 2014, defendants David L. Credle, Nancy B. Lamb, District Attorney's Office
(First Judicial District), and Robert Womble ("defendants") filed a motion to dismiss [D .E. 7 5]. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Defendants argue that the court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction
over plaintiff's claims concerning his ongoing state criminal case, that defendants are entitled to
prosecutorial immunity, and that the Eleventh Amendment bars plaintiffs request for damages
against Womble in his official capacity and against the District Attorney's Office (First Judicial
District).
The court has reviewed plaintiff's complaint [D.E. 1], defendants' motion to dismiss [D.E.
75], defendants' memorandum in support [D.E. 76], and plaintiff's response [D.E. 115]. The court
abstains from exercising jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims against defendants concerning his
ongoing state criminal case.

See,~'

Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n,

457U.S. 423,432(1982); Youngerv. Harris,401 U.S. 37,43-45 (1971); Laurel Sand&Gravel.lnc.
v. Wilso!!, 519 F.3d 156, 165 (4th Cir. 2008); Nivens v. Gilchrist, 444 F.3d 237,241 (4th Cir. 2006);
Gilbert v. N.C. State Bar, 660 F. Supp. 2d 636, 643-45 (E.D.N.C. 2009). Alternatively, the

individual defendants are entitled to prosecutorial immunity.

See,~. Rehberg v.

Paulk, 132 S. Ct.

1497, 1501-{)5 (2012); Imblerv. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409,420-29 (1976); Lyles v. Sparks, 79 F.3d
372, 376-78 (4th Cir. 1996). Finally, the Eleventh Amendment bars plaintiffs claims for damages
against Womble in his official capacity and against the District Attorney's Office (First Judicial
District).

See,~.

Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 169 (1985); Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S.

651, 662-63 (1974); Nivens, 444 F.2d at 249.
In sum, the court GRANTS the motion to dismiss [D.E. 75] of defendants Credle, Lamb,

District Attorney's Office (First Judicial District), and Womble.
SO ORDERED. This _1.g_ day ofNovember 2014.

Chief United States District Judge

2