Findings and Conclusions of the

United States Magistrate Judge Page -1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

STEVEN W. QUICK, 1243617, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 3:05-CV-1622-N

) ECF

F. DUNCAN THOMAS and JESSICA EDWARDS, )

Defendants. )

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and an order of the District Court, this

case has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The findings, conclusions and

recommendation of the Magistrate Judge follow:

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

I. Parties

Plaintiff is an inmate confined in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional

Institutions Division (TDCJ-CID). He brings this suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He is

proceeding pro se, and the Court has granted him permission to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Defendants are Hunt County District Attorney F. Duncan Thomas and Assistant District

Attorney Jessica Edwards. No process has issued in this case.

II. Background

Plaintiff seeks to sue Defendant Edwards for allegedly making slanderous statements

during his trial – namely that he is a “child molester.” He also argues that Edwards made a

terroristic threat during plea bargain negotiations when she told Plaintiff that if he accepted the

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01622-N Document 8 Filed 03/03/06 Page 1 of 4 PageID 31
Findings and Conclusions of the

United States Magistrate Judge Page -2-

plea offer, the district attorney’s office would not indict him on an additional offense. He states

that Defendant Thomas harassed him by using psychiatrists for the trial and that Defendant

Thomas “assumed things” without having any medical knowledge. 

Plaintiff seeks 950 million dollars in damages, “bragging rights,” and the Defendants’

shields, badges and certifications.

III. Discussion

Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That

section provides in pertinent part:

The court shall review . . . as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil

action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or

employee of a governmental entity [and] [o]n review, the court shall identify cognizable

claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint (1) is

frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2)

seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from suit. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and (b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

Both sections 1915A(b) and 1915(e)(2)(B) provide for sua sponte dismissal if the Court

finds the complaint is “frivolous” or that it “fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted.” A complaint is frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact.” Neitzke v.

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).

Defendants’ actions and statements occurred during Plaintiff’s criminal trial. These

actions were taken in Defendants’ role as prosecutors. It is well established that a prosecutor is

absolutely immune from personal liability for damages for any action taken pursuant to his/her

role as prosecutor in preparing for the initiation of judicial proceedings and in presenting the

state’s case. See Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 129 (1997); Imbler v. Patchman, 424 U.S.

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01622-N Document 8 Filed 03/03/06 Page 2 of 4 PageID 32
1

It is also clear that the Supreme Court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,

486-87 (1994), precludes Plaintiff’s action since his underlying conviction has not been reversed,

expunged, invalidated or called into question. See Magistrate Judge’s Questionnaire, Answer

No. 3. In light of the absolute immunity of the prosecutors, however, even if his conviction was

invalidated in some fashion, monetary damages against the Defendants would be foreclosed.

Findings and Conclusions of the

United States Magistrate Judge Page -3-

409, 430-31 (1976); Esteves v. Brock, 106 F.3d 674, 676 (5th Cir. 1997).1

Plaintiff fails to allege any cognizable claim for relief against Defendants under § 1983. 

The complaint should therefore be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous and for seeking

monetary relief against Defendants who are immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§

1915A(b)(1) and (2) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)(iii).

RECOMMENDATION

The Court recommends that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed with prejudice claims

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous and for seeking monetary

relief against Defendants who are immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1) and

(2) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)(iii).

Signed this 3rd day of March, 2006.

_____________________________________

PAUL D. STICKNEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01622-N Document 8 Filed 03/03/06 Page 3 of 4 PageID 33
Findings and Conclusions of the

United States Magistrate Judge Page -4-

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

The United States District Clerk shall serve a copy of these findings, conclusions and

recommendation on Plaintiff by mailing a copy to him by United States Mail. Pursuant to Title

28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), any party who desires to object to these findings,

conclusions and recommendation must serve and file written objections within ten days after

being served with a copy. A party filing objections must specifically identify those findings,

conclusions or recommendation to which objections are being made. The District Court need not

consider frivolous, conclusory or general objections. A party's failure to file such written

objections to these proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation shall bar that party from

a de novo determination by the District Court. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). 

Additionally, any failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and

recommendation within ten days after being served with a copy shall bar the aggrieved party

from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge that are

accepted by the District Court, except upon grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United Servs.

Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01622-N Document 8 Filed 03/03/06 Page 4 of 4 PageID 34