From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dukes v. Pappas

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Feb 17, 2010
CIVIL ACTION No. 09-3869 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 17, 2010)

Summary

extending absolute immunity to Maryland assistant attorney general regarding conduct pertaining to civil enforcement action brought against plaintiff

Summary of this case from Mathis v. McDonough

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION No. 09-3869.

February 17, 2010


ORDER


And now, this 17th day of February, 2010, pursuant to the authority conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.
2. All claims for nonmonetary relief are DISMISSED for lack of standing.
2. All claims arising out of plaintiff's criminal trial and conviction are DISMISSED as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).
3. All claims against the United States and FINRA are DISMISSED for failure to comply with the exhaustion requirement of the Federal Tort Claims Act.
4. All remaining claims arising out of plaintiff's civil enforcement proceedings are DISMISSED as barred by the doctrine of prosecutorial immunity.
5. All remaining § 1983 and Bivens claims arising out of events on or before July 23, 2006, are DISMISSED as time-barred.
6. Defendants Delacy, Curran, Lee, FINRA, and the United States are DISMISSED as parties to this action.
7. Plaintiff is instructed to file a second amended complaint within 30 days, specifying the content and time of each allegedly wrongful statement that the remaining defendants made to FWC members or the public and identifying the particular defendant who made each specific statement. Should the plaintiff not file a second amended complaint as specified, the balance of the claims in the complaint will be dismissed without further notice to the plaintiff.


Summaries of

Dukes v. Pappas

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Feb 17, 2010
CIVIL ACTION No. 09-3869 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 17, 2010)

extending absolute immunity to Maryland assistant attorney general regarding conduct pertaining to civil enforcement action brought against plaintiff

Summary of this case from Mathis v. McDonough

stating that allegations that defendants have a continuing practice of discrimination do not “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ ”

Summary of this case from Hall v. Valeska
Case details for

Dukes v. Pappas

Case Details

Full title:MARCUS DUKES, Plaintiff, v. CATHERINE PAPPAS, Senior Trial Counselor…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Feb 17, 2010

Citations

CIVIL ACTION No. 09-3869 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 17, 2010)

Citing Cases

Mathis v. McDonough

1999). Courts outside the Fourth Circuit have reached similar conclusions, including in cases involving…

Lovejoy v. Pennsylvania

Plaintiff does not allege that his conviction or sentence has been reversed, vacated, or otherwise called…