# Marvel v. Doe

> District Court, W.D. Arkansas · March 26, 2018

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10009098

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** March 26, 2018
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10009098

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10009098. Public record. Not legal advice.