Meagher v. Andre et al

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT. Signed by District Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr on 7/6/16. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(am)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
SUSAN ELIZABETH MEAGHER,
Plaintiff,
v.
DENISE ANDRE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. 3:16-cv-01506
JUDGE CRENSHAW

MEMORANDUM

The Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, is a resident of Birmingham, Alabama. She brings this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 against Denise Andre, a General Sessions Judge in Williamson
County; Joseph Woodruff, a Circuit Court Judge in Williamson County; Jessica Borne, a former
Williamson County prosecutor; and Nephtalay Feliciano, a Williamson County probation officer;
seeking injunctive relief and damages.
In February, 2014, Judge Andre found the Plaintiff guilty of stalking. She granted the
victim an Order of Protection and placed the Plaintiff on probation. In October of that year, Judge
Woodruff denied the Plaintiff=s appeal of the conviction.
Four months later, Plaintiff=s probation officer, Feliciano, contacted her and told her to
surrender herself at the Williamson County Jail for violating the terms of her probation. The
Plaintiff complied with the probation officer=s instructions. She alleges that she was later wrongly
arrested for violating the Order of Protection and was forced to plead guilty.

1

The Plaintiff claims that, throughout these judicial proceedings, the defendants violated her
constitutional rights.
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), as do probation officers whose actions are related to ensuring
that the probationer complies with the terms of her probation. Loggins v. Franklin County, Ohio,
2007 WL 627861 (6th Cir.; 3/1/07); see also Demoran v. Witt, 781 F.2d 155, 157 (9th Cir.
1986)(finding absolute immunity for probation officers). Thus, the defendants are absolutely
immune from any liability for damages.
The Plaintiff is also seeking injunctive relief in the form of vacating the Order of Protection,
removing the defendants from their positions, and expunging any court costs that may be owed by
the Plaintiff. The Court is in no position to order such relief. Therefore, the Plaintiff has failed to
state a claim against these 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)(ii).
An appropriate order will be entered.

_______________________________
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2