Case Name: Abdul NEDAB, Appellant v. Barbara LITTEN
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-19
Citations: 184 F. App'x 261
Docket Number: No. 05-5058
Parties: Abdul NEDAB, Appellant v. Barbara LITTEN.
Judges: Before: FUENTES, VANANTWERPEN and ROTH , Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 184
Pages: 261–262

Head Matter:
Abdul NEDAB, Appellant v. Barbara LITTEN.
No. 05-5058.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 March 23, 2006.
Filed June 19, 2006.
Abdul Nedab, Marienville, PA, pro se.
Laura S. Irwin, Office of United States Attorney, Pittsburgh, PA, for Barbara Lit-ten.
Before: FUENTES, VANANTWERPEN and ROTH , Circuit Judges.
Judge Roth assumed senior status on May 31, 2006.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Abdul Nedab appeals from a District Court order dismissing his case as "legally frivolous in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)." The Appellee has filed a motion for summary action. Because no substantial question is presented, we will grant the Appellee's motion and summarily affirm. L.A.R. 27.4.
In his complaint, Nedab alleges that several guards at SCI-Forest, along with a local officer, beat him on March 3, 2005, injuring him severely. He claims that the incident was recorded on the prison's video system. He seeks monetary, declaratory, and injunctive relief against the Tionesta District Attorney, Barbara Lit-ten, on the grounds that she failed to investigate his private criminal complaint against the guards, and that she failed to bring criminal charges against them. Adopting a Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, the District Court dismissed the complaint holding that Litten's activities are intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process and, thus, receive absolute immunity. This appeal followed.
We agree with the District Court that Litten is entitled to absolute immunity for all claims related to her decision not to prosecute. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 420, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976). To the extent that Nedab's complaint can be read to allege violations connected to investigatory or administrative functions, he cannot maintain a section 1983 suit because the facts of his complaint do not demonstrate that any constitutional right has been violated. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001); Wright v. City of Phila., 409 F.3d 595, 599-600 (3d Cir.2005).
We assume that the District Court intended to cite 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
In the past year, Nedab has filed several lawsuits in the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, all relating in part to the alleged beating. See Nedab v. Neal, Civ. No. 06-CV-00007 (W.D.Pa); Nedab v. Lencer, Civ. No. 06-cv-00054 (W.D.Pa.); Nedab v. Beard, Civ. No. 05-cv-00405 (W.D.Pa.); and Nedab v. Beard, Civ. No. 06-cv-00035 (W.D.Pa.) (naming well over 100 defendants).
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and exercise plenary review. See Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir.1999).