Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

LeMeur v. Scott

United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division

August 10, 2017

MARC EDWARD LeMEUR PLAINTIFF
v.
JOHN R. SCOTT; and BRAD KARREN DEFENDANTS

          OPINION AND ORDER

          P. K. HOLMES, III CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiff, Marc Edward LeMeur, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. He proceeds pro se. He has also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).

         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

         According to the allegations of the complaint (Doc. 1), Plaintiff is incarcerated under an invalid/unlawful conviction. He maintains the trial court did not have jurisdiction over him because he is, among other things, a sovereign man.

         During his criminal proceeding, he alleges, among other things, that he was removed from the courtroom by both Judge John Scott and Judge Karren. He alleges they both refused to honor his status or to demonstrate that they had jurisdiction over him. He was convicted of a felony and sentenced to a term of imprisonment on December 16, 2016.

         Plaintiff asks that he immediately be released, his “conviction be dismissed, and that he be made whole.

         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 fails 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)).

         III. DISCUSSION

         The PLRA also contains a “three strikes” provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) which limits the ability of a prisoner, who has filed at least three claims that have been dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, to obtain IFP status. Court records demonstrate that Plaintiff has filed at least three cases which were dismissed as frivolous, malicious or for failure to state a claim: (1) LeMeur v. Daniels, et al., Civil No. 09-5256 (dismissed 7/16/2010--§ 1915(g) strike flag entered); (2) LeMeur v. Daniels, et al., Civil No. 09-5259 (dismissed 8/6/2010--§ 1915(g) strike flag entered); and (3) LeMeur v. Daniels, et al., Civil No. 09-5260 (dismissed 7/14/2010-- § 1915(g) strike flag entered). Plaintiff also had at least two other cases that count as strikes but did not have a strike flag entered: (1) LeMeur v. Vaughn, Civil No. 09-5257 (dismissed 10/19/2010--report and recommendation adopted in toto which recommended dismissal as frivolous or for failure to state a claim and entry of a strike flag); and (2) LeMeur v. Daniels, et al., Civil No. 09-5261 (dismissed May 4, 2010--report and recommendation adopted in toto which recommended dismissal as frivolous or for failure to state a claim and entry of a strike flag).

         Although Plaintiff has at least three strikes, he may still proceed IFP if he is under “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff has made no such allegations. Therefore, he is not eligible to proceed IFP.

         This case is also subject to dismissal because it is frivolous. Judge Scott and Judge Karren are immune from suit. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991)("Judicial immunity is an immunity from suit, not just from ultimate assessment of damages"); see also Duty v. City of Springdale,42 F.3d 460, 462 (8th Cir. 1994). "Judges performing judicial functions enjoy absolute immunity from § 1983 liability." Robinson v. Freeze, 15 F.3d 107, 108 (8th Cir. 1994). “A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.