Swoopes v. Jones et al

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 12/27/2011. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(hb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

ANTHONY SWOOPES
Plaintiff,

]
]
]
]
]
]
]

v.
MICHAEL JONES, et al.
Defendants.

No. 3:11-1192
Judge Trauger

M E M O R A N D U M
The

plaintiff,

proceeding

pro

se,

is

an

inmate

at

the

Robertson County Jail in Springfield, Tennessee. He brings this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Michael Jones, a
Circuit Court Judge in Robertson County; Jason White, a Robertson
County

prosecutor;

and

Timothy

Richter,

an

Assistant

Public

Defender in Robertson County; seeking damages.
According to the complaint, the plaintiff was returned to
Tennessee in July, 2009, from Kentucky for a violation of his
probation. The plaintiff, an African American, was not given credit
for time served in Kentucky while a white prisoner also returned to
Tennessee for a probation violation was allowed credit for time
served. The plaintiff believes that the defendants’ refusal to
credit him with time served was an act of discrimination.
To establish a claim for § 1983 relief, the plaintiff must
plead and prove that the defendants, while acting under color of

state law, deprived him of a right or privilege guaranteed by the
Constitution or laws of the United States. Parratt v. Taylor, 451
U.S. 527, 535 (1981).
It is well settled that attorneys, even those appointed by the
courts, do not act “under color of state law” within the meaning of
§ 1983 when representing a client. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S.
312

(1981);

Mulligan

v.

Schlachter,

389

F.2d

231,

233

(6th

Cir.1968). Thus, plaintiff’s claim that his attorney (Timothy
Richter) was ineffective and acted in a discriminatory manner is
not actionable under § 1983.
Judges

enjoy

absolute

immunity

from

monetary

claims

for

actions taken within the scope of their jurisdiction. Pierson v.
Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-54 (1967). Likewise, prosecutors enjoy the
same type of immunity for conduct within the scope of their
prosecutorial duties. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976).
Here, the plaintiff alleges that the judge who presided over
his case (Michael Jones) and the prosecutor (Jason White) also
acted in a discriminatory manner. However, there are no factual
allegations suggesting that either the judge or the prosecutor were
acting beyond the scope of their judicial or prosecutorial duties.
Thus, these defendants are absolutely immune from any liability for
damages.
Because

the

defendants

are

either

cloaked

with

absolute

immunity from liability or did not act under color of state law,
the plaintiff has failed to state a claim against the defendants

for which relief can be granted. Under such circumstances, the
Court is obliged to dismiss this action sua sponte. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(iii).
An appropriate order will be entered.

____________________________
Aleta A. Trauger
United States District Judge