Opinion
CIVIL 4:22-cv-04043
06-13-2022
TIMOTHY WADE JACKSON PLAINTIFF v. CHARLES E. BLACK, Prosecuting Attorney; and CONNIE MITCHELL, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney DEFENDANTS
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This is a civil rights action filed by Plaintiff Timothy Wade Jackson pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3) (2011), the Honorable Susan O. Hickey, Chief United States District Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and Recommendation.
The case is before the Court for preservice screening under the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court has the obligation to screen any complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is currently an inmate in the Miller County Detention Center in Texarkana, Arkansas. He filed his original Complaint on May 26, 2022. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis was granted that same day. (ECF No. 3). In response to this Court's order, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on June 9, 2022. (ECF No. 7). Plaintiff states at the time of the alleged incidents he was in jail and still awaiting trial on pending criminal charges. (ECF No. 7, p. 3).
Plaintiff names the following individuals as Defendants in the Complaint: Charles E. Black - Prosecuting Attorney; and Connie Mitchell - Deputy Prosecuting Attorney. (ECF No. 7, pp. 2- 3). Plaintiff is suing Defendants in their individual capacities only. Id. at pp. 4-6. He is seeking compensatory damages. Id. at p. 7. Plaintiff alleges he told Defendants he was being unlawfully held against his will and neither one of them would help him. Id. at pp. 4, 6.
II. APPLICABLE LAW
Under the PLRA, the Court is obligated to screen the case prior to service of process being issued. The Court must dismiss a complaint, or any portion of it, if it contains claims that: (1) are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or, (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
A claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A claim fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it does not allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “In evaluating whether a pro se plaintiff has asserted sufficient facts to state a claim, we hold ‘a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded . . . to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'” Jackson v. Nixon, 747 F.3d 537, 541 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)). However, even a pro se plaintiff must allege specific facts sufficient to support a claim. Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8thCir. 1985).
III. DISCUSSION
Defendants Charles E. Black and Connie Mitchell are identified by Plaintiff as prosecutors in the Eighth Judicial District, Miller County Arkansas. The Court assumes, for the purpose of this screening Order, Defendant Black and Mitchell are the prosecutors involved in pursuing the criminal charges against Plaintiff. Plaintiff's claims against these Defendants must be dismissed because as prosecutors they are immune from suit. The United States Supreme Court in Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431, (1976), established the absolute immunity of a prosecutor from a civil suit for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 "in initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State's case." Id. at 427. This immunity extends to all acts that are "intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process." Id. at 430. See also Brodnicki v. City of Omaha, 75 F.3d 1261 (8th Cir. 1996) (County prosecutors were entitled to absolute immunity from suit).
Plaintiff fails to allege that Defendants Black or Mitchell engaged in any conduct other than actions taken in connection with their duties as prosecuting attorneys during Plaintiff's criminal case. Accordingly, Defendants and Mitchell are entitled to absolute immunity and the claims against them should be dismissed with prejudice.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, I recommend Plaintiff's claims against all Defendants be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
The parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of the Report and Recommendation in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties are reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the district court.
IT IS SO ORDERED