Opinion
Civil Action No. 1:06-CV-118.
June 8, 2006
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Lonnie Wooten, Jr., a prisoner confined at the Hardin County Jail, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Henry Coe, the District Attorney of Hardin County, Texas.
The above-styled action was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to the United States Magistrate Judge for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.
Factual Background
Plaintiff has been detained at the Hardin County Jail since June 13, 2005, when he was arrested on a charge of arson. Plaintiff contends defendant Coe violated his right to due process by allowing him to remain in custody for 256 days without an indictment.
Standard of Review
An in forma pauperis proceeding may be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) if it: (1) is frivolous or malicious, (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or (3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
A complaint, containing as it does both factual allegations and legal conclusions, is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); McCormick v. Stalder, 105 F.3d 1059, 1061 (5th Cir. 1997). A complaint lacks an arguable basis in law if it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory. See Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997). A complaint lacks an arguable basis in fact if, after providing the plaintiff the opportunity to present additional facts when necessary, the facts alleged are clearly baseless. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992).
A complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears beyond doubt that a plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). In considering whether to dismiss a complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, all factual allegations in the complaint must be taken as true and construed favorably to the plaintiff. Fernandez-Montes v. Allied Pilots Assoc., 987 F.2d 278, 284 (5th Cir. 1993). However, conclusory allegations will not suffice to prevent dismissal for failure to state a claim. Id.
Analysis
Prosecutors are absolutely immune from liability under Section 1983 for their conduct associated with initiating a prosecution and presenting the state's case because that conduct is closely associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process. Imbler v. Patchman, 424 U.S. 409, 430-31 (1976); Cousin v. Small, 325 F.3d 627, 631 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 826 (2003); Brummett v. Camble, 946 F.2d 1178, 1181 (5th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 965 (1992). Prosecutors are not entitled to absolute immunity when performing administrative or investigative functions. Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 273 (1993). However, prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity when acting in their role as advocates for the state, including actions taken before the initiation of a prosecution and away from the courtroom. Buckley, 509 U.S. at 273; Cousin, 325 F.3d at 632. The immunity is not defeated by showing that the prosecutor acted wrongfully or even maliciously. Imbler, 424 U.S. at 427 n. 27; see also Cousin, 325 F.3d at 635 (holding that the suppression of significant exculpatory evidence is shielded by absolute immunity); Graves v. Hampton, 1 F.3d 315, 318 n. 9 (5th Cir. 1993) ("A prosecutor is immune, however, even if accused of knowingly using perjured testimony."); Brummett, 946 F.2d at 1181 (concluding that prosecutors are absolutely immune from a Section 1983 suit predicated on malicious prosecution).Plaintiff has not shown that the actions of which he complains were taken outside the defendant's role as an advocate for the state or that the actions were not central to the task of initiating a prosecution. Therefore, the defendant's actions are protected by the doctrine of absolute prosecutorial immunity.
Recommendation
This civil rights action should be dismissed with prejudice in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
Objections
Objections must be (1) specific, (2) in writing, and (3) served and filed within ten days after being served with a copy of this report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 6(a), 6(b), and 72(b).
A party's failure to object bars that party from (1) entitlement to de novo review by a district judge of proposed findings and recommendations, Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276-77 (5th Cir. 1988), and (2) appellate review, except on grounds of plain error, of unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n., 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).