Opinion
Case. 1:16-cv-02454
12-14-2016
Robert Philpott, Plaintiff, v. Judge Cox et al., Defendants.
Assigned To : Unassigned
Assign. Date : 12/15/2016
Description: Pro Se Gen. Civ (F Deck) MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has submitted a Complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff is a prisoner incarcerated in Tucker, Arkansas. He sues two judges in Sebastian County, Arkansas, for decisions they allegedly rendered in separate court proceedings. Plaintiff alleges that defendants' decisions with regard to his authority as an ordained minister violated his First Amendment right to religious freedom, and he "would like to have the life back he has lost since being told he couldn't be a minister[.]" Compl. at 2. Plaintiff seeks $30 million in damages.
The court is required to screen a prisoner's complaint and dismiss if the complaint, among other grounds, seeks monetary relief from an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (b)(2). "Judges enjoy absolute judicial immunity from suits for money damages for all actions taken in the judge's judicial capacity, unless these actions are taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction." Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (citation omitted). "[J]udicial immunity is an immunity from suit, not just from ultimate assessment of damages." Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991). The defendants have been sued for performing judicial functions. Hence, this case will be dismissed on the ground of immunity. A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion. Date: December 14, 2016
/s/_________
United States District Judge