CHESTNUT v. CARPENTER et al
MEMORANDUM. AN APPROPRIATE ORDER FOLLOWS.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOEL H. SLOMSKY ON 1/31/17. 1/31/17 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PLFF., 1 COPY TO LEGAL BIN.(pr, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MICHAEL A. CHESTNUT
JAN 3 't 2017
LINDA A. CARPENTER, et B~EBAAKMAN,Clerk
~ E M oDR_P._Rl6ff
D U M
tJ"'ft"' ti- 11
Plaintiff, a prisoner, has filed a pro se 42 U.S.C.
civil rights lawsuit against Judge Linda A. Carpenter of the
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, and the Philadelphia District
attorney and two assistant district attorneys.
challenging his conviction and sentence.
He appears to be
In his prayer for
relief, he is requesting release from incarceration and money
For the following reasons, plaintiff's claims will be
dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1915 (e) (2) (B) (ii).
Judges have absolute immunity from civil rights actions
seeking money damages for actions performed in a judicial
Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978).
this complaint suggests that Judge Carpenter was outside of her
judicial capacity in connection with plaintiff's criminal case.
Therefore, the claims against Judge Carpenter will be dismissed.
The doctrine of absolute immunity shields prosecutors from
liability related to their official acts.
424 U.S. 409, 417-19 (1976).
Imbler v. Pachtman,
A prosecutor is absolutely immune
from liability for money damages under
1983 for acts "within
the scope of his duties in initiating and pursuing a criminal
Id. at 410.
Plaintiff's claims against Seth
Williams, Robin Godfrey and Hugh Burns will be dismissed because
there is nothing in the complaint to suggest that they acted
outside of the scope of their prosecutorial duties in connection
with plaintiff's criminal case.
Plaintiff is alleging, in essence, that he was illegally
convicted and sentenced.
"to recover damages for
allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for
other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a
conviction or sentence invalid, a
1983 plaintiff must prove
that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct
appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state
tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into
question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994)
(footnote and citation omitted) .
Plaintiff does not state that
his conviction has been reversed or otherwise invalidated.
Finally, in his prayer for relief, plaintiff is requesting
release from incarceration.
Such a request may only be brought
in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, not a 1983 action.
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973).
A district court should generally provide a pro se plaintiff
with leave to amend unless amendment would be inequitable or
See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114
(3d Cir. 2002).
Here, plaintiff will not be given leave to amend
because amendment would be futile, as he cannot cure the above
deficiencies in his complaint.
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?