United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 21-60442 

Summary Calendar 

Bobby Walker, Jr., 

Plaintiff—Appellant, 

versus

The State of Mississippi; Angel Myers McIlrath; Justin 

Michael Lovorn; Robert P. Krebs, Judge, 

Defendants—Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Mississippi 

USDC No. 1:20-CV-338 

Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges. 

Per Curiam:*

Bobby Walker Jr., Mississippi prisoner # 200997006, has appealed the 

dismissal as frivolous of his civil rights action against the State of Mississippi, 

Jackson County District Attorney Angel McIlrath, Assistant District 

*

 Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

October 6, 2021 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 21-60442 Document: 00516044473 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/06/2021
No. 21-60442 

2 

Attorney Justin Lovorn, and Circuit Judge Robert Krebs. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The district court determined that the State of 

Mississippi was not amenable to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and that the 

individual defendants were absolutely immune from suit. Our review is for 

an abuse of discretion. See Butler v. S. Porter, 999 F.3d 287, 292 (5th Cir. 

2021). 

Walker asserts that he should have been permitted to amend his 

complaint to substitute the County of Jackson for the State of Mississippi as 

a defendant. No error has been shown with respect to dismissal of the claims 

against the State of Mississippi, and there is no reason to believe that Walker 

can allege facts that would entitle him to relief from the County of Jackson. 

See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). 

Walker’s claims against the individual defendants call into question 

the validity of the bond revocation proceedings and, therefore, implicate the 

rule in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Under Heck, to recover 

damages for actions whose unlawfulness would imply the invalidity of the 

adverse decisions with respect to his release on bond, Walker would have to 

prove that the decisions have “been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by 

executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such 

determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ 

of habeas corpus.” Id. The applicability of the doctrine of absolute immunity 

is ordinarily considered as a threshold question before reaching the Heck 

analysis. See Boyd v. Biggers, 31 F.3d 279, 284 (5th Cir. 1994). 

Prosecutors have absolute immunity from suit for actions performed 

within the scope of their prosecutorial duties. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 

409, 420-24, 431 (1976). “Prosecutorial immunity applies to the 

prosecutor’s actions in initiating the prosecution and in carrying the case 

through the judicial process.” Boyd, 31 F.3d at 285. “[A]cts undertaken by 

Case: 21-60442 Document: 00516044473 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/06/2021
No. 21-60442 

3 

a prosecutor in preparing for the initiation of judicial proceedings or for trial, 

and which occur in the course of his role as an advocate for the State, are 

entitled to the protections of absolute immunity.” Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 

509 U.S. 259, 273 (1993). Absolute immunity does not extend to a 

prosecutor’s acts that are investigatory. See id. at 273-74. Walker’s 

speculative accusations, if true, do not show that McIlrath or Lovorn acted 

outside the scope of their prosecutorial duties or that either of them acted as 

an investigator with respect to the bond revocation proceedings. See id.

“Judicial officers are entitled to absolute immunity from claims for 

damages arising out of acts performed in the exercise of their judicial 

functions.” Boyd, 31 F.3d at 284. To prevail, Walker must show that Judge 

Krebs’s actions were “nonjudicial in nature” or that they were “taken in the 

complete absence of all jurisdiction.” See id.

Walker contended below that the conditions set by Judge Krebs were 

too restrictive, that bond was improperly revoked, and that the reinstatement 

of bond was improperly denied; he contended that Judge Krebs was unfairly 

biased. Walker complains on appeal that, without having an opportunity to 

conduct discovery, he could not show how the judge and the prosecutors 

were biased and conspired against him because he was charged with a sex 

crime. “[J]udicial immunity is an immunity from suit, not just from ultimate 

assessment of damages[, and it] is not overcome by allegations of bad faith or 

malice.” Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991); Ballard v. Wall, 413 F.3d 510, 

515 (5th Cir. 2005). 

Walker concedes that the actions of Judge Krebs were judicial in 

nature. He contends instead that Judge Krebs exceeded his authority because 

he is a judge of an “inferior” court and that Judge Krebs lacked jurisdiction 

because he was not charged by a criminal complaint supported by an affidavit. 

These contentions are without merit. See Pryer v. Gardner, 247 So. 3d 1245, 

Case: 21-60442 Document: 00516044473 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/06/2021
No. 21-60442 

4 

1251 (Miss. 2018); Chapell v. State, 107 So. 3d 1003, 1006 (Miss. Ct. App. 

2012). 

The judgment is AFFIRMED. Walker’s motion for a preliminary 

injunction is DENIED.

The district court’s dismissal of Walker’s complaint as frivolous 

counts as a single strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 

103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996), abrogated in part on other grounds, Coleman 

v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532, 537 (2015). We WARN Walker that if he 

accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil 

action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless 

he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). 

Case: 21-60442 Document: 00516044473 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/06/2021