CHESTNUT v. CARPENTER et al

Filing 2

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

FILED

MICHAEL A. CHESTNUT
v.

CIVIL ACTION

JAN 3 't 2017

LINDA A. CARPENTER, et B~EBAAKMAN,Clerk

~ E M oDR_P._Rl6ff
SLOMSKY

I

NO. 17-0382
D U M

u H

tJ"'ft"' ti- 11
Pi!:BR:UA~ ,

J.

3/

2017

I

Plaintiff, a prisoner, has filed a pro se 42 U.S.C.

§

1983

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
damages.

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
capacity.

Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978).

Nothing in

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
prosecution."

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.

However,

"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
corpus[.]"

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
futile.

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.