Jackson v. Pearson

Filing 5

Memorandum Opinion: Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, and this action is dismissed under Section 1915(e). Further, the Court certifies, pursuant 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. (Related Doc # 1 , 2 ). Judge Sara Lioi on 5/17/2016. (P,J)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

MAGGAE JO JACKSON,

PLAINTIFF,
vs.

JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON,

DEFENDANT.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 4:16cv1121

JUDGE SARA LIOI

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On May 11, 2016, pro se plaintiff Maggae Jo Jackson filed this in forma pauperis
action for “slander” against United States District Judge Benita Y. Pearson. The one-page
complaint essentially alleges Judge Pearson improperly dismissed a previous case plaintiff
filed in this Court. For the reasons stated below, this action is dismissed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e).
Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S.
364, 365, 102 S. Ct. 700, 70 L. Ed. 2d 551 (1982) (per curiam), the district court is required
to dismiss an action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) if it fails to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted, or if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. 1 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 324, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1989); Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470 (6th
Cir. 2010).
1

An in forma pauperis claim may be dismissed sua sponte, without prior notice to the plaintiff and without
service of process on the defendant, if the court explicitly states that it is invoking § 1915(e) [formerly 28
U.S.C. § 1915(d)] and is dismissing the claim for one of the reasons set forth in the statute. Chase Manhattan
Mortg. v. Smith, 507 F.3d 910, 915 (6th Cir. 2007); Gibson v. R.G. Smith Co., 915 F.2d 260, 261 (6th Cir.
1990) (citations omitted); Harris v. Johnson, 784 F.2d 222, 224 (6th Cir. 1986).

Judicial officers are generally absolutely immune from civil suits for money
damages. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9, 112 S. Ct. 286, 116 L. Ed. 2d 9 (1991) (collecting
cases); Barnes v. Winchell, 105 F.3d 1111, 1115 (6th Cir. 1997) (collecting cases). This
far-reaching protection is needed to ensure that the independent and impartial exercise of
judgment is not impaired by the exposure of potential damages. Barnes, 105 F.3d at 1115.
For this reason, absolute immunity is overcome only in two situations: (1) when the
conduct alleged is not performed in the judge’s judicial capacity; or (2) when the conduct
alleged, although judicial in nature, is taken in complete absence of all jurisdiction.
Barnes, 105 F.3d at 1116 (citing, among authority, Mireles, 502 U.S. at 11-12). Plaintiff
alleges no facts suggesting either of these criteria has been met in this case.
Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted,
and this action is dismissed under § 1915(e). Further, the Court certifies, pursuant 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 17, 2016
HONORABLE SARA LIOI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2