Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_06-cv-02068/USCOURTS-arwd-2_06-cv-02068-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION

CARL EDWARD WILLIS PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-2068 

HEAD PROSECUTOR, Sebastian

County Arkansas; WENDY 

SHARUM, Deputy Prosecuting

Attorney; STACEY SLAUGHTER,

Deputy Prosecuting Attorney;

DANIEL SHUE, Deputy Prosecuting

Attorney; CITY OF FORT SMITH,

ARKANSAS; FORT SMITH POLICE

DEPARTMENT; and CHIEF OF POLICE,

FORT SMITH, ARKANSAS DEFENDANTS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, Carl Willis, filed this civil rights action on June 15, 2006. He proceeds pro se

and in forma pauperis. The case is before the undersigned for a determination of whether service

of process should issue. 

BACKGROUND

Willis contends his constitutional rights were violated in a number of ways. First, he

contends he was improperly arrested and charged with harassment by the Fort Smith Police

Department. During his “unwarranted” trial on this claim, Willis claims the woman who accused

him of the “fake charge” lied on the witness stand. 

Second, he contends there were a number of incidents, occurring on unspecified dates,

during which he and various members of his family were verbally attacked, threatened, and

Case 2:06-cv-02068-RTD Document 10 Filed 02/13/07 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

derogatory terms were used against them. Willis alleges they reported the incidents to the police

and were told to follow-up by reporting the incidents to the prosecutor’s office. Willis states

the prosecutor’s office merely advised them to stay away from those people.

Finally, after seeing the chief prosecutor, Willis states a letter was written telling the

people to stay away from the Willis family. However, Willis states he also received a letter

stating his family should stay away from the other family. 

After the letters were sent, Willis states two more incidents happened at a local WalMart. During the second incident, Willis alleges his son was slapped. When Willis went to call

the police, he states the man followed him out threatening him and making derogatory

comments. Willis alleges despite describing the man’s truck to the police the police did nothing.

Willis maintains the police department violated his rights by failing to protect him and

provide service to him. Willis maintains nothing was done to protect him and his family.

DISCUSSION

Willis’ claims are subject to dismissal. First, to the extent Willis intends to bring a

malicious prosecution claim, the claim fails. It has been “uniformly held that malicious

prosecution by itself is not punishable under § 1983 because it does not allege a constitutional

injury.” Kurtz v. City of Shrewsbury, 245 F.3d 753, 758 (8th Cir. 2001). Similarly, a cause of

action for defamation is not cognizable under § 1983. Loftin v. United States, 72 F.3d 133 (8th

Cir. 1995); Miner v. Brackney, 719 F.2d 954, 955 (8th Cir. 1983).

 

Case 2:06-cv-02068-RTD Document 10 Filed 02/13/07 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-3-

Second, the head prosecuting attorney, Wendy Sharum, Stacey Slaughter, and Daniel

Shue, all prosecuting attorneys, are immune from suit. The United States Supreme Court, in

Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431, 96 S. Ct. 984, 995, 47 L. Ed. 2d 128 (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., 424 U.S. at 427. This immunity

extends to all acts that are “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.”

Id., 424 U.S. at 430. See also Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 113 S. Ct. 2606, 2615, 125

L. Ed. 2d 209 (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). Based on the allegations of the complaint, it is

clear the prosecuting attorneys are entitled to absolute immunity. See also Brodnicki v. City of

Omaha, 75 F.3d 1261 (8th Cir. 1996)(County prosecutors were entitled to absolute immunity

from suit).

To the extent Willis’ complaint seeks injunctive relief, we find the claim not cognizable.

While the Supreme Court has not held that this immunity insulates prosecutors from declaratory

or injunctive relief, see Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 104 S. Ct. 1970, 80 L. Ed. 2d 565 (1984),

a plaintiff must show some substantial likelihood that the past conduct alleged to be illegal will

recur. Willis can make no such showing here. Further, injunctive relief is not appropriate where

an adequate remedy under state law exists. Id., 466 U.S. at 542 & n.22. See also Bonner v.

Circuit Court of St. Louis, 526 F.2d 1331, 1336 (8th Cir. 1975). 

Case 2:06-cv-02068-RTD Document 10 Filed 02/13/07 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-4-

Third, to the extent Willis’ claims are based on the refusal of defendants to bring criminal

charges against those who allegedly harassed Willis and the members of his family the claims

fail. A private citizen has no right to institute criminal prosecution. See Diamond v. Charles,

476 U.S. 54, 64-65, 106 S. Ct. 1697, 90 L. Ed. 2d 48 (1986); In re Kaminski, 960 F.2d 1062,

1064 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (private partylacks judiciallycognizable interest in prosecution of another

person); Lopez v. Robinson, 914 F.2d 486, 494 (4th Cir. 1990); Cok v. Cosentino, 876 F.2d 1,

2 (1st Cir. 1989).

Fourth, the Fort Smith Police Department is not a person or a legal entity subject to suit

under § 1983. See e.g., Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 1992)(“[s]heriff’s

departments and police departments are not usually considered legal entities subject to suit”);

Powell v. Cook County Jail, 814 F. Supp. 757 (N.D. Ill. 1993)(jail not subject to suit); Marsden

v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 856 F. Supp. 832, 836 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)(“jail is not an entity that is

amenable to suit”); In re Scott County Master Docket, 672 F. Supp. 1152, 1163 n. 1 (D. Minn.

1987)(sheriff’s department is not a legal entity subject to suit), aff’d, Myers v. Scott County, 863

F.2d 1017 (8th Cir. 1989).

Fifth, the “states have no affirmative obligation to protect individuals against private

violence.” Hart v. City of Little Rock, 432 F.3d 801, 805 (8th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, ___ U.S.

___, 126 S. Ct. 2902, 165 L. Ed. 2d 919 (2006)(citing DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep’t of

Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 197, 109 S. Ct. 998, 103 L. Ed. 2d 249 (1989)). “Substantive due

process does, however, require a state to protect individuals under two theories. First, the state

owes a duty to protect those in its custody. Second, the state owes a duty to protect individuals

Case 2:06-cv-02068-RTD Document 10 Filed 02/13/07 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-5-

if it created the danger to which the individuals are subjected.” Hart, 432 F.3d at 805 (citation

omitted). Clearly neither situation applies in this case. 

CONCLUSION

I therefore recommend dismissal of the case on the grounds the claims are frivolous, are

asserted against individuals immune from suit, or are not cognizable under § 1983. 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). 

Willis 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 objections

may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. Willis is reminded that

objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the district court.

DATED this 13th day of February 2007.

/s/ J. Marschewski 

HON. JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-02068-RTD Document 10 Filed 02/13/07 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>