Porterfield v. Annos
Filing
5
Memorandum Opinion and Order: This action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e). The Court further certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. (Related Doc # 1 ). Judge Sara Lioi on 12/7/2016. (P,J)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
ERIC LEE PORTERFIELD,
PLAINTIFF,
vs.
LUWAYNE ANNOS,
DEFENDANT.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 4:16-cv-1954
JUDGE SARA LIOI
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER
Pro se plaintiff Eric Lee Porterfield, a state prisoner incarcerated in the Mansfield
Correctional Institution, has filed this in forma pauperis civil rights action against Trumbull
County Prosecutor LuWayne Annos. Plaintiff alleges Mr. Annos was a prosecutor in the criminal
case brought against him in Trumbull County, in which the plaintiff entered a plea of guilty and
was convicted of two counts of aggravated murder and kidnapping and one count of attempted
aggravated murder, aggravated burglary, and aggravated robbery. See State v. Porterfield, No. 00
CR 402 (Trumbull Cty. Ct. of Comm. Pl.).
Plaintiff’s Complaint, and its multiple unexplained exhibits, are incomprehensible. The
best the Court can discern from plaintiff’s pleading is that he contends he is owed a “debt” from
Mr. Annos and seeks to recover from him the “sum certain amount of $36,000,000.00” for
“injuries/damages and breach of contract, violation of oath and misrepresentation and
impermissible application of [a] statute.” (Doc. No. 1 at 4-5.) The complaint does not set forth a
discernible factual basis for such claims.
Although the standard of review for pro se pleadings is liberal, principles requiring
generous construction of pro se pleadings are not without limits. Beaudett v. City of Hampton,
775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985). Federal district courts are expressly required, under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), to screen prisoner in forma pauperis actions and dismiss before service
any action the court determines is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief
may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. To
state a claim on which relief may be granted, a complaint must set forth factual matter, accepted
as true, sufficient to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d
468, 471 (6th Cir. 2010). A complaint is frivolous when it is based on an indisputably meritless
legal theory or where its factual contentions are clearly baseless. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490
U.S. 319, 325, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1989).
Plaintiff’s complaint does not set forth allegations reasonably suggesting he has any
plausible federal claim against Mr. Annos. Further, it is well-established that, “in initiating a
prosecution and in presenting the State’s case, [a] prosecutor is immune from a civil suit for
damages under § 1983.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431, 96 S. Ct. 984, 47 L. Ed. 2d 128
(1976). Plaintiff does not allege facts plausibly suggesting Mr. Annos engaged in any conduct
falling outside the scope of his prosecutorial duties, for which he is immune from a damages suit.
Conclusion
Accordingly, this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The Court further
certifies, pursuant to 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: December 7, 2016
HONORABLE SARA LIOI
UNITED STATES 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?