From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mosley v. Santana

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION
Jul 6, 2016
No. 3:16-1498 (M.D. Tenn. Jul. 6, 2016)

Opinion

No. 3:16-1498

07-06-2016

BOBBY JAMES MOSLEY, JR. Plaintiff, v. JUDE SANTANA, et al. Defendants.


MEMORANDUM

The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, is a pre-trial detainee at the Davidson County Criminal Justice Center in Nashville. He brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Jude Santana, a prosecutor in Davidson County; and Leah Wilson, his court-appointed attorney; seeking damages.

On July 15, 2015, the plaintiff was arrested and charged with attempted murder. He alleges that evidence proving his innocence "was concealed and altered." Docket Entry No. 1 at pg. 5.

A prosecutor enjoys absolute immunity for conduct within the scope of his prosecutorial duties. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976). Moreover, 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); see also Mulligan v. Schlachter, 389 F.2d 231, 233 (6th Cir.1968). Thus, plaintiff's claims against his prosecutor and the attorney appointed to represent him are not actionable under § 1983.

In any event, a prisoner does not state a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if a ruling on his claim would necessarily render his continuing confinement invalid, until and unless the reason for his continued confinement has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal, or has been called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 2372 (1994). Nowhere in the complaint does it suggest that the plaintiff has already successfully tested the validity of his confinement in either a state or federal court. Therefore, the plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

When a prisoner plaintiff proceeding as a pauper has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court is obliged to dismiss the instant action sua sponte. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

An appropriate order will be entered.

/s/_________

Todd Campbell

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Mosley v. Santana

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION
Jul 6, 2016
No. 3:16-1498 (M.D. Tenn. Jul. 6, 2016)
Case details for

Mosley v. Santana

Case Details

Full title:BOBBY JAMES MOSLEY, JR. Plaintiff, v. JUDE SANTANA, et al. Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

Date published: Jul 6, 2016

Citations

No. 3:16-1498 (M.D. Tenn. Jul. 6, 2016)