Opinion
Civil Action No. 04-443 (EGS).
March 17, 2005
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed this action against the United States of America, a United States Attorney, and an Assistant United States Attorney for conduct engaged in during his criminal prosecution. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss. Because the Court finds that the United States is not subject to liability for plaintiff's claim and the remaining defendants have absolute immunity, the motion will be granted and the case dismissed.
Background
On April 23, 2003, in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, plaintiff was charged in a nine-count grand jury indictment. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Exhibit ("Ex."), 1. Defendant Roscoe C. Howard, Jr. signed the indictment in his capacity as United States Attorney for the District of Columbia. Id. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Kathleen Konopka, Assistant United States Attorney, filed this "fake" indictment. Complaint ("Compl.") at 2. Plaintiff contends that defendants violated his Fifth Amendment rights by failing to disclose all discovery evidence regarding the grand jury process, and that the indictment lacked the required seal. Id. Standard of Review
Since defendants are challenging the Court's subject matter jurisdiction, the Court may consider material outside the pleadings. See Artis v. Greenspan, 223 F.Supp.2d 149, 152 n. 1 (D.D.C. 2002).
In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Taylor v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 132 F.3d 753, 761 (D.C. Cir. 1997). "[A] complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); Kowal v. MCI Communications Corp., 16 F.3d 1271, 1276 (D.C. Cir. 1994). "Indeed it may appear on the face of the pleadings that a recovery is very remote and unlikely but that is not the test." Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, 534 U.S. 506, 515 (2002) (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)).
Discussion
Defendant United States of America moves to dismiss on the ground that it cannot be sued in a Bivens action. Defendant is correct. The Bivens decision does not extend to the United States or a federal agency. Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 72 (2001); FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 485-86 (1994). Thus, plaintiff cannot maintain this action against the United States.
Although plaintiff has not cited the legal basis for his complaint, a damage suit against a federal official for violations of an individual's constitutional rights is brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
Defendants Howard and Konopka have been named by plaintiff in their official capacities as federal prosecutors. A criminal prosecutor is immune from damages for "initiating a prosecution" and presenting a case. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976). Such immunity extends to matters occurring during the grand jury process. See Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 490 n. 6 (1991); Gray v. Bell, 712 F.2d 490, 502 (D.C. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1100 (1984). Absolute immunity is conferred on prosecutors because of the "concern that harassment by unfounded litigation would cause a deflection of the prosecutor's energies from his public office, and the possibility that he would shade his decisions instead of exercising the independence of judgment required by his public trust." Imbler, 424 U.S. at 423. Meritless litigation "could be expected with some frequency, for a defendant often will transform his resentment at being prosecuted into the ascription of improper and malicious actions" to the prosecutor. Id. at 425.
This case presents the type of specious litigation the Imbler Court recognized in conferring immunity on prosecutors. The alleged errors by the defendant prosecutors was clearly within the scope of their duties in presenting a criminal case. Thus, they are entitled to immunity from damages.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case and plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The defendants' motion to dismiss will be granted. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.