Gray v. Hanlon

Full title: FELTON GRAY, Plaintiff, v. ROGER HANLON "DA", et al., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: May 3, 2007

Civil No. 07-6087-AA (D. Or. May. 3, 2007)

Opinion

Civil No. 07-6087-AA.

May 3, 2007

ORDER

ANN AIKEN, District Judge

Plaintiff's Application to proceed in forma pauperis (#1) is allowed. However, for the reasons set forth below, plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Plaintiff's complaint alleges violations of his civil rights and seeks money damages against the Washington County District Attorneys Office and the District Attorney that "presided" in criminal proceeding against plaintiff. Although plaintiff generally alleges "racial discrimination" he has not alleged any facts that would give rise to a claim for racial discrimination. The gist of plaintiff's claim seems to be that he was improperly assessed a "compensatory fine" as part of his sentence.

It is well settled that prosecutors are absolutely immune from liability for their prosecutorial functions. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976); Ybarra v. Reno Thunderbird Mobile Home Village, 723 F.2d 675, 677-78 (9^th Cir. 1984); Freeman v. Hittle, 708 F.2d 443 (9^th Cir. 1983); Broam v. Bogan, 320 F.2d 1023 (9^th Cir. 2003).

In this case, plaintiff seeks damages from defendants for their prosecutorial function. Defendants are immune from liability. Therefore, plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim. This action is dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED