Opinion
3:22-cv-00147-LPR
07-07-2022
MICAH ANGEL PLAINTIFF v. LESLIE RUTLEDGE, Arkansas Attorney General DEFENDANT
ORDER
LEE P. RUDOFSKY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff Micah Angel's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. She reports living on little income. The law requires that I screen the Complaint.
See Martin-Trigona v. Stewart, 691 F.2d 856, 857 (8th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (complaint can be filed if plaintiff qualifies by economic status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)).
Pl.'s Mtn. for Leave to Proceed IFP, Doc. 1.
Ms. Angel brings this Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Leslie Rutledge as the Attorney General of Arkansas, alleging that she “refused to file charges against Candice Edwards.” Ms. Angel contends that Ms. Edwards failed to properly prepare an appeal (in violation of the rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court) and that General Rutledge had a responsibility to criminally charge Ms. Edwards for that failure. It is not clear who Ms. Edwards is, what her role in appellate filings is, and which Arkansas Supreme Court rule was violated. Ms. Angel sues only General Rutledge, seeking damages.
Complaint, Doc. 2 at 4.
A public records search reveals that Ms. Angel was cited on January 9, 2020 for violating a Jonesboro noise ordinance. Ms. Angel failed to perfect her appeal of the district court's ruling to the Craighead County Circuit Court, and the appeal was dismissed as not perfected. Subsequently, the Circuit Court's decision was affirmed by the Arkansas Court of Appeals. See Angel v. State, 2022 Ark.App. 154, *1.
Ms. Angel's case will be dismissed for failure to state a claim. First, a violation of the rules governing appellate filings is not a criminal offense. And, even if it were, Ms. Angel “lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or non-prosecution of another.” Second, General Rutledge is immune from suit for damages. Because damages are the sole remedy Ms. Angel seeks, the suit is in effect one against the State. But, the State is immune from claims for damages by virtue of the Eleventh Amendment.
Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973); see also Parkhurst v. Tabor, 569 F.3d 861, 866 (8th Cir. 2009).
Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 169-70 (1985).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1. Ms. Angel's motion to proceed IFP (Doc. 1) is GRANTED.
2. Ms. Angel's complaint (Doc. 2) will be dismissed without prejudice.
3. The Court certifies that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order and accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith.