Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05046/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05046-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

RONALD A. HUTCHESON PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-5046

JUDGE XOLLIE DUNCAN DEFENDANT

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Ronald A. Hutcheson brought this complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while

detained in the Benton County Detention Center. He proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis

(IFP). 

I. Background

Hutcheson alleges that the defendant, Judge Xollie Duncan, Circuit Judge, denied his

request for legal counsel on two occasions – February 9, 2006 and March 2, 2006. Hutcheson

states that he asked Judge Duncan if he needed an attorney, and Judge Duncan responded,

“You’re going to jail.” (Doc. 1.) 

Hutcheson attaches to his complaint a copy of incarceration order entered on March 2,

2006. This order reflects that Judge Duncan is a circuit judge over domestic relations in Benton

County, Arkansas. It confirms that Hutcheson appeared pro se and that he was “ordered

incarcerated in the Benton County Jail for contempt of court” until March 30, 2006. (Doc. 1.

Attach.) 

Hutcheson has further submitted a letter to the court that was filed as a supplement to his

complaint. (Doc. 7.) According to this supplement, Judge Duncan entered the incarceration

order on a contempt of court when Hutcheson violated an earlier restraining order. Hutcheson

Case 5:06-cv-05046-JLH Document 8 Filed 06/20/06 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

claims that on February 13, 2006, Judge Schrantz had him “picked up” on the same restraining

order, and Hutcheson “bonded out” on a $2500 bond. He also claims that Judge Duncan turned

him over to Judge Keith on a criminal mischief count for damage to a truck. Hutcheson contends

that he is making restitution of $1250 for the damage to the truck. (Doc. 7.) 

II. Discussion

Section 1983 provides a federal cause of action for the deprivation, under color of law,

of a citizen's "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws" of the

United States. "To establish a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, [a plaintiff] must show [1] a

deprivation [under color of law] of [2] a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the

Constitution or the laws of the United States." Dunham v. Wadley, 195 F.3d 1007, 1009 (8th Cir.

1999). "[T]o establish a violation of constitutional rights under § 1983, the plaintiff must prove

that the defendant’s unconstitutional action was the 'cause in fact' of the plaintiff’s injury."

Butler v. Dowd, 979 F.2d 661, 669 (8th Cir. 1992).

Hutcheson names as the sole defendant in this action Judge Xollie Duncan, a state court

judge. Further, Hutcheson alleges that Judge Duncan refused to appoint him counsel and ordered

that Hutcheson be incarcerated for contempt of court. These actions were taken by Judge

Duncan under his authority as a judge. Thus, Judge Duncan is entitled to absolute immunity

from suit for such actions. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11, 112 S. Ct. 286, 116 L. Ed. 2d

9 (1991) (“Judicial immunity is an immunity from suit, not just from ultimate assessment of

damages”); Robinson v. Freeze, 15 F.3d 107, 108 (8th Cir. 1994) (judges performing judicial

functions enjoy absolute immunity from § 1983 liability). 

Case 5:06-cv-05046-JLH Document 8 Filed 06/20/06 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-3-

III. Conclusion

Itherefore recommend that plaintiff's complaint be dismissed as frivolous and for failure

to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii) (IFP action, or any portion thereof, may

be dismissed on such grounds at any time). 

Hutcheson has ten days from receipt of this report and recommendation in which

to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely

written objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. Hutcheson

is reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by

the district court. 

DATED this 20th day of June 2006.

/s/ Beverly Stites Jones

_________________________________________

HON. BEVERLY STITES JONES 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:06-cv-05046-JLH Document 8 Filed 06/20/06 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>