Marvel v. Doe

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION

MICHAEL MARVEL PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 2:18-CV-02047

JOHN DOE SCOTT COUNTY DEFENDANTS

PROSECUTING ATTORNEY

ORDER

The case is before the Court for preservice screening under the provisions of the Prison

Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court has the obligation to

screen any complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or

employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed his Complaint on March 6, 2018. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff was directed to file

a completed in forma pauperis application, and he did so on March 19, 2018. (ECF No. 6).

Plaintiff alleges his constitutional rights were violated by the Defendant, John Doe Scott County

Prosecutor. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges the Prosecutor filed a warrant for his arrest for failure to

register in Arkansas in October 2016; however, Plaintiff was living in Oklahoma, and he had

registered in Oklahoma. Plaintiff alleges the notification of the Oklahoma registration was sent to

Arkansas, but the Prosecutor still pursued a claim that he had failed to register. (ECF No. 1 at 4).

Plaintiff proceeds against Defendant in his or her official capacity. (ECF No. 1 at 4).

Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages. (ECF No. 1 at 7).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Under the PLRA, the Court is obligated to screen the case prior to service of process being

issued. The Court must dismiss a complaint, or any portion of it, if it contains claims that: (1) are

frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or, (2) seeks

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

A claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams,

490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A claim fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it

does not allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “In evaluating whether a pro se plaintiff has asserted

sufficient facts to state a claim, we hold ‘a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded ... to less

stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Jackson v. Nixon, 747 F.3d 537,

541 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)). Even a pro se Plaintiff

must allege specific facts sufficient to support a claim. Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337

(8th Cir. 1985).

III. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff’s claims against the John Doe Scott County Prosecuting Attorney are subject to

dismissal. The United States Supreme Court, in Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976),

established the absolute immunity of a prosecutor from a civil suit for damages under 42 U.S.C. §

1983 “in initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State’s case.” Id. at 427. This immunity

extends to all acts that are “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.”

Id. at 430. See also Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993) (Prosecutor acting as an advocate

for the state in a criminal prosecution is entitled to absolute immunity while a prosecutor acting in

an investigatory or administrative capacity is only entitled to qualified immunity). Based on the

allegations of the complaint, it is clear the prosecuting attorney is entitled to absolute immunity.

See also Brodnicki v. City of Omaha, 75 F.3d 1261 (8th Cir. 1996) (County prosecutors were

entitled to absolute immunity from suit).

IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of March 2018.

For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE.

/s/P. K. Holmes,

P. K. HOLMES, III

CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE