Hurst v. Oswalt et al

Filing 6

OPINION and ORDER adopting 3 the Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Michael H. Watson on 2/12/15. (jk1) (This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

Mark E. Hurst,
Plaintiff,

v.
Kenneth Oswalt,

Case No. 2:14-cv-2636

et a/.,

Judge Michael H. Watson

Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), Magistrate Judge King issued a report and
recommendation ("R&R") upon an initial screening of the Complaint in this civil rights
case. The R&R concluded that Plaintiff seeks monetary damages from defendants who
are immune from such relief. R&R 1, ECF No. 3. Accordingly, it recommends dismissal
of the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(8)(ii), (iii). Plaintiff objects to the R&R.
ECF No. 5. For the following reasons, the Court overrules Plaintiff's objections.

I.

FACTS

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, sues Kenneth Oswalt, the Licking County
Prosecutor, and Robert E. Clesaric, a Special Prosecutor for Licking County, Ohio
("Defendants") for a civil rights violation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Compl. 1-2,
ECF No. 2. He asserts Defendants violated their duty under Brady v. Maryland, 373
U.S. 83 (1963), to provide his defense counsel with exculpatory evidence, resulting in
his criminal conviction. /d. at 3.

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) provides that "[w]ithin 14 days after
being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file
specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations." Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(2). "The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate
judge's disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept,
reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the
matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

Ill.

ANALYSIS

The R&R stated that "[p]rosecutors enjoy absolute immunity from claims for
monetary damages under § 1983 for actions taken within the scope of their
prosecutorial duties." R&R 2, ECF No. 3. It concluded that Plaintiff's Complaint sought
to "base [D]efendants' liability on their prosecutorial function," namely their failure to
supply exculpatory information to Plaintiff's defense counsel during their prosecution of
Plaintiff's criminal case. /d. As such, the R&R concluded that Defendants were immune
from monetary damages and recommended the Court dismiss the case. /d.
On objection, Plaintiff appears to argue that the R&R's conclusion is contrary to
law and that Defendants' suppression of Brady material fails the prosecutorial function
test. Plaintiff argues the cases the R&R relies on involved offenses committed during
the trial phase of a case, whereas actions taken during the investigation and discovery
phase of a case are typically not deemed prosecutorial duties. He also cites an Ohio
statute regarding immunity from damages and argues that Defendants are not entitled
to immunity pursuant to the state.

Case No. 2:14-cv-2636

Page 2 of 3

Plaintiff's arguments are not well taken. Prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity in

§ 1983 suits even for malicious or dishonest actions that constitute an integral part of the
judicial process. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 427 (1976). Despite Plaintiff's
contention that the Court should construe Defendants' failure to furnish exculpatory
evidence as an investigative function, "Jones and Imbler make clear that absolute
immunity protects a prosecutor from civil liability for the non-disclosure of material
exculpatory evidence at trial." Koubriti v. Convertino, 593 F.3d 459, 470 (6th Cir. 2010)
(citing Imbler, 424 U.S. at 431 n.34; Jones v. Shankland, BOO F.2d 77, 80 (6th Cir.
1986)); Hatchett v. City of Detroit, 495 F. App'x 567, 571 (6th Cir. 2012) ("[Absolute]
immunity also extends to suits based upon a prosecutor's failure to disclose exculpatory
evidence to a defendant.") (citing Koubriti, 593 F.3d at 647). Thus, the Magistrate
Judge's conclusion that Defendants' actions meet the "prosecutorial function" test is not
contrary to law. Further, the Court finds Plaintiff's reference to Ohio Revised Code

§ 2950.12 inapposite to this case. That statute does not apply to the Court's analysis of
his § 1983 claims.
Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's objection, ADOPTS the R&R, and
DISMISSES this case with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case No. 2:14--cv-2636

Page 3 of 3