Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00985/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00985-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Katrina Caver
Defendant
Leslie Renee Childers
Plaintiff
Clanton Police Dept.
Defendant
Daniel Eric Smitherman
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

LESLIE RENEE CHILDERS, 

Plaintiff,

v.

CLANTON POLICE DEPT., et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIV. ACT. NO. 2:14cv985-MHT-TFM

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Plaintiff Leslie Renee Childers (“Childers”) 

claims that the Clanton Police Department, Officer Daniel Eric Smitherman, and Katrina 

Caver, a court clerk (“the Clerk”) violated her constitutional rights by refusing to arrest or 

prosecute an individual. Specifically, Childers asserts that Officer Smitherman and the 

Clerk refused to allow her to press charges against a man who hit her with a vehicle. 

Childers alleges that the defendants charged the individual with nothing more than thirddegree assault. In addition, she alleges that Officer Smitherman did not arrest him for 

violating the law. Upon review of the Complaint, the court concludes that all of the 

plaintiff’s claims against the defendants should be dismissed.

Case 2:14-cv-00985-MHT-TFM Document 8 Filed 10/06/14 Page 1 of 5
II. DISCUSSION

A. The City of Clanton Police Department

The Clanton Police Department is not a legal entity subject to suit or liability 

under § 1983. See Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 1992). The court 

therefore concludes that the plaintiff’s claims against the Clanton Police Department are 

due to be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

B. Criminal Prosecution

To the extent that Childers asserts that Officer Smitherman and the Clerk failed to 

charge, arrest, or prosecute William Roebuck, her claim fails to rise to the level of a 

constitutional violation.1 An essential element of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action is that the 

conduct complained of deprived the plaintiff of rights, privileges, or immunities secured 

by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Conlogue v. Shinbaum, 949 F.2d 378, 

380-81 & n.5 (11th Cir. 1991). A “private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in 

the prosecution or non-prosecution of another.” Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 

619 (1973). See also Leeke v. Timmerman, 454 U.S. 83 (1981). Thus, the actions about 

which the plaintiff complains did not deprive her of any constitutionally protected interest 

and therefore cannot form the basis for an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Consequently, the plaintiff’s claim that the defendants violated her constitutional rights 

 

1

To the extent Childers sues the Clerk in her official capacity for refusing to accept her charges against

Mr. Roebuck, the claims are also due to be dismissed pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (iii). The law is well-settled that judicial officers are absolutely immune from civil 

liability for acts undertaken pursuant to their judicial authority. See Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 

227-229 (1988); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978). 

Case 2:14-cv-00985-MHT-TFM Document 8 Filed 10/06/14 Page 2 of 5
by failing to arrest or prosecute Mr. Roebuck should be dismissed for failure to state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

C. The Conspiracy Claim

To the extent that Childers asserts the defendants conspired to deprive her of her 

constitutional rights, she is entitled to no relief. A conspiracy claim justifiably may be 

dismissed because of the conclusory, vague and general nature of the allegations. 

Fullman v. Graddick, 739 F.2d 553, 556-57 (11th Cir. 1984). The court has carefully 

reviewed the instant complaint. At best, the assertions made by Childers are self-serving, 

purely conclusory allegations which fail to assert those material facts necessary to 

establish the existence of a conspiracy. Strength v. Hubert, 854 F.2d 421, 425 (11th Cir. 

1988) (to properly state a claim for relief based on a conspiracy, a plaintiff must plead 

that the offending parties “reached an understanding” to deny the plaintiff her 

constitutional rights); Harvey v. Harvey, 949 F.2d 1127, 1133 (11th Cir. 1992) (merely 

“stringing together” acts, without showing parties “reached an understanding” to violate 

plaintiff’s rights, is insufficient to demonstrate the existence of a conspiracy). In light of 

the foregoing, the court concludes Childers’ bare allegations of a conspiracy are 

insufficient to support a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Harvey, 949 F.2d at 

1133; Fullman, 739 F.2d at 556-57. 

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that:

Case 2:14-cv-00985-MHT-TFM Document 8 Filed 10/06/14 Page 3 of 5
1. The plaintiff’s claim regarding the defendants’ refusal to charge, arrest, or 

prosecute an individual be DISMISSED with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

2. The plaintiff’s claim regarding a conspiracy to violate her constitutional 

rights be DISMISSED with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

3. This case be dismissed prior to service of process in accordance with the 

directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Finally, it is

ORDERED that the plaintiff shall file any objections to the said Recommendation 

on or before October 21, 2014. Any objections filed must specifically identify the 

findings in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which the party objects. 

Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. 

The parties are advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, 

therefore, it is not appealable.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in 

the Magistrate Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the 

District Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on 

appeal factual findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except 

upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 

(5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982). See 

also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as 

Case 2:14-cv-00985-MHT-TFM Document 8 Filed 10/06/14 Page 4 of 5
binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to 

the close of business on September 30, 1981.

Done this 6th day of October, 2014.

 /s/Terry F. Moorer 

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:14-cv-00985-MHT-TFM Document 8 Filed 10/06/14 Page 5 of 5