Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_12-cv-03933/USCOURTS-alnd-2_12-cv-03933-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GREGORY ANDERSON, JR., )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

vs. ) Case No. 2:12-cv-03933-CLS-HGD

 )

STATE OF ALABAMA, )

 )

Defendant. ) 

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

The magistrate judge filed a report and recommendation on October 10, 2013,

recommending that this action, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, be dismissed

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) for seeking monetary relief from defendants who are

immune from suit. The plaintiff filed objections to the report and recommendation

on October 18, 2013.

The plaintiff argues that District Attorney Pamela Casey violated his

constitutional rights when she continued to hold him in the Blount County Jail even

after he informed her through employees ofthe BlountCounty Jail that he had already

been prosecuted on those charges. Regardless of what the district attorney knew,

should have known, or was told by employees of the Blount County Jail, prosecutors

are absolutely immune from liability in § 1983 suits brought regarding prosecutorial

FILED

 2014 Mar-28 PM 03:24

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:12-cv-03933-CLS-HGD Document 16 Filed 03/28/14 Page 1 of 2
actionsthat are “intimately associated with the judicial phase ofthe criminal process,”

Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 428 (1976), because of “concern that harassment

by unfounded litigation” could both “cause a deflection of the prosecutor’s energies

from his public duties” and lead him to “shade his decisions instead of exercising the

independence of judgment required by his public trust.” Id. at 423; see Van de Kamp

v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335, 357 (2009). The actions of District Attorney Pamela

Casey, as alleged by the plaintiff, are prosecutorial conduct and, as such, are subject

to absolute immunity. 

Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court

file, including the report and recommendation and the objections thereto, the court

is of the opinion that the magistrate judge’s report is due to be, and it hereby is,

ADOPTED, and the recommendation is ACCEPTED. Accordingly, the complaint is

due to be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) for seeking monetary relief

from defendants who are immune. A Final Judgment will be entered.

DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of March, 2014.

______________________________

United States District Judge

2

Case 2:12-cv-03933-CLS-HGD Document 16 Filed 03/28/14 Page 2 of 2