United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Harrison Division
OPINION AND ORDER
TIMOTHY L BROOKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
proceeds in this matter pro se and in forma
pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court has
the obligation to screen any complaint in which an individual
has sought leave to proceed IFP.
filed her Complaint on July 16, 2019. On July 17, 2019, the
Court entered Orders directing her to provide a completed IFP
application and an Amended Complaint. (Docs. 6, 7). Plaintiff
did soon August 7, 2019. (Docs. 8, 9). Plaintiff was granted
IFP status on August 8, 2019.
brings her claims in both this and her underlying state court
case as a "sovereign citizen." (Doc. 8 at 16-18,
28-29, 32). In her Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges her
Fourteenth Amendment Due Process rights were violated
"in open court, and following court" on May 4,
2018. id. at 3-4. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges
that Judge Dale Ramsey instructed his clerks to stop
accepting paperwork from her. id. at 4. Plaintiff
alleges this denied her access to the court, id. at
5. With her Complaint, Plaintiff attached a district court
session worksheet and an Order signed by Judge Ramsey on May
4, 2018. The worksheet indicated that Plaintiffs state case
involved a traffic charge for disregarding a stop sign.
Id. at 37. The Order stated that Plaintiff's
self-styled "Judgment" filed in that case was not
granted because it was "out of order," and there
was "no basis under Arkansas Law or the Arkansas Rules
of Criminal Procedure for the filing of a
'Counterclaim' in a traffic case." Id.
also alleges these actions violated her rights under "18
U.S.C. § 242; color of law" by not granting her
counterclaim. Id. at 4. Plaintiff proceeds against
the Third Judicial District Court in its official capacity
only. She fails to indicate the capacity in which she
proceeds against Defendant Ramsey. Id. at 2. She
seeks compensatory and punitive damages. Id. at 5.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), 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).
is frivolous if "it lacks an arguable basis either in
law or fact." Neltzke 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)). 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).
Judge Dale Ramsey
Ramsey, a Carroll County District Court Judge,  is 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 [s]he took was in error, was done maliciously, or
was in excess of [her] authority." Stump v.
Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978). Judicial 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 and documents attached to the Amended
Complaint that neither situation applies here. Plaintiffs
claims against Defendant Ramsey are subject to dismissal.
Third Judicial District Court
District Court is not a person or a legal entity subject to
suit under § 1983. See, e.g., Harris v. Missouri Ct
of Appeals, W. Dist,787 F.2d 427, 429 (8th Cir. 1986)
(a court is not a "person" within the meaning of
the Civil Rights Act.). "Likewise, courts as entities
are not vulnerable to § 1983 suits, because they are
protected by state immunity under the eleventh
amendment." Id. ...