United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division
NICHOLAS R. MYERS PLAINTIFF
DOUG MARTIN, Washington County Circuit Judge, 4th Judicial District; and JOHN SNYDER, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, 4th Judicial District DEFENDANTS
OPINION AND ORDER
TIMOTHY L. BROOKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
has filed this case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He
proceeds pro se. He has submitted a Motion to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP") (Doc.
2). 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. §
is incarcerated in the Washington County Detention Center
("WCDC") on pending criminal charges. Plaintiff
alleges his constitutional rights are being violated by the
"ridiculously" high bond that has been set-$50,
000. He alleges he has been denied a bond reduction. He also
alleges that the Defendants are aware of the fact that he has
a medical condition, cardiac necrosis, and that he cannot
have surgery until he is released from jail. Plaintiff
maintains the Defendants are also aware of the fact that the
WCDC officials are denying him medical care despite the fact
that his condition is worsening.
states his trial was just continued for another two months.
As relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages.
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.
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 Atl. 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)).
claims are subject to dismissal. First, Judge Martin is
absolutely 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 took was in error, was done
maliciously, or was in excess of his authority."
Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978).
immunity is overcome in two situations: (1) if the challenged
act is nonjudicial; and (2) if the action, although judicial
in nature, was taken in the complete absence of all
jurisdiction. Mireles, 502 U.S. at 11. It is clear
from the allegations of the Complaint that neither situation
Plaintiffs claim against John Snyder is subject to dismissal.
The United States Supreme Court in Imblerv.
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); Brodnicki v. City of
Omaha, 75 F.3d 1261 (8th Cir. 1996) (county prosecutors
entitled to absolute immunity from suit).
claims asserted in the Complaint are subject to dismissal as
they are made against individuals who are immune from suit.
Therefore, the case is DISMISSED WITH ...