Atencio v. Brown, 4:19CV00225 JM. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20190627763
Visitors: 9
Filed: Jun. 26, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 26, 2019
Summary: ORDER JAMES M. MOODY, JR. , District Judge . Plaintiff has filed a nonsensical Complaint against Assistant United States Attorney Liza Brown in her official capacity. Ms. Brown is the prosecutor involved in the prosecution of Plaintiff for illegal drugs and weapons charges in this district. The United States, on behalf of Ms. Brown, has filed a Motion to Dismiss. Ms. Brown has been sued in her official capacity and is entitled to sovereign and absolute immunity. Claims against federal offi
Summary: ORDER JAMES M. MOODY, JR. , District Judge . Plaintiff has filed a nonsensical Complaint against Assistant United States Attorney Liza Brown in her official capacity. Ms. Brown is the prosecutor involved in the prosecution of Plaintiff for illegal drugs and weapons charges in this district. The United States, on behalf of Ms. Brown, has filed a Motion to Dismiss. Ms. Brown has been sued in her official capacity and is entitled to sovereign and absolute immunity. Claims against federal offic..
More
ORDER
JAMES M. MOODY, JR., District Judge.
Plaintiff has filed a nonsensical Complaint against Assistant United States Attorney Liza Brown in her official capacity. Ms. Brown is the prosecutor involved in the prosecution of Plaintiff for illegal drugs and weapons charges in this district. The United States, on behalf of Ms. Brown, has filed a Motion to Dismiss. Ms. Brown has been sued in her official capacity and is entitled to sovereign and absolute immunity. Claims against federal officials in their official capacity are barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity, unless Congress has expressed an unequivocal waiver. Coleman v. Espy, 986 F.2d 1184, 1191 (8th Cir. 1993). Further, it appears that Ms. Brown has been sued because of action she took during the performance of her prosecutorial duties. It is well settled that prosecutors are immune based on their actions taken in the performance of prosecutorial duties. Van De Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335, 129 S.Ct. 855, 860, 172 L. Ed. 2d 706 (2009).
For these and all of the reason stated in the Motion to Dismiss and supporting brief, the Motion (ECF No. 4) is GRANTED and the Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed. The Clerk is directed to close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
