Butler v. Rainbolt

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: July 26, 2024
• Docket: 23-7091
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Appellate Case: 23-7091 Document: 010111085502 Date Filed: 07/26/2024 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS July 26, 2024 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court JOSHUA DUANE BUTLER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. No. 23-7091 (D.C. No. 6:23-CV-00397-RAW-JAR) CARMAN RAINBOLT, (E.D. Okla.) Asst. District Attorney Okmulgee Co,

Defendant - Appellee. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________

Before BACHARACH, EID, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

Joshua Duane Butler appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against Okmulgee County, Oklahoma, Assistant

District Attorney Carman Rainbolt.1 Exercising jurisdiction under

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

1 Butler spells Rainbolt’s first name “Carmen,” but our review indicates the proper spelling is “Carman.” Appellate Case: 23-7091 Document: 010111085502 Date Filed: 07/26/2024 Page: 2

28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm in part and vacate and remand for further

proceedings in part.

BACKGROUND

Butler faced criminal charges in the district court for Okmulgee

County, Oklahoma, case No. CF-2019-00260 (the Criminal Case). Rainbolt

was the prosecuting attorney in the Criminal Case.

Butler was detained in jail pending the Criminal Case. In 2020, he

brought suit in federal district court against Okmulgee County Sheriff

Eddie Rice regarding the conditions at the jail. The federal district court

designated the civil rights case as No. 20-cv-231-RAW-SPS (the Civil

Case).2 Butler alleges Rainbolt represented Rice in the Civil Case. In 2021,

the district court dismissed the Civil Case for failure to state a claim.

Butler believes Rainbolt created a conflict of interest by serving as

both the prosecuting attorney in the Criminal Case and the defense

attorney in the Civil Case. In 2023, he filed a § 1983 complaint in federal

district court against Rainbolt in his official and individual capacities, as a

prosecutor and as a defense attorney. He alleged that Rainbolt violated his

right to due process by forcing him to “walk away/give up” the Civil Case

2 Butler lists the case number as CIV-21-231-RAW-SPM, but the case

Butler v. Rice in the Eastern District of Oklahoma was No. 20-cv-231-RAW- SPS.

2 Appellate Case: 23-7091 Document: 010111085502 Date Filed: 07/26/2024 Page: 3

and take a plea deal or face the possibility of a life sentence in the Criminal

Case. R. at 8 (capitalization omitted). For relief, he sought monetary awards

against Rainbolt in both his official and individual capacities.3

The district court disposed of the case on screening under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A. It noted that the Eleventh Amendment protects states against

damages suits. Then, citing Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976),

and Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 272 (1993), it held Butler’s

claims were barred by absolute prosecutorial immunity. It dismissed

Butler’s complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted and seeking monetary relief from a defendant who was immune

from such relief. See § 1915A(b)(1), (2). It also assessed a strike under

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Butler now timely appeals.

DISCUSSION

Under § 1915A(a), “[t]he court shall review . . . a complaint in a civil

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

officer or employee of a governmental entity.” Under § 1915A(b), “the court

shall . . . dismiss the complaint, or any portion” thereof, if it “(1) is frivolous,

3 Butler also requested the district court allow him to litigate the Civil

Case, but such relief is not available in this suit, which is separate and distinct from the Civil Case. 3 Appellate Case: 23-7091 Document: 010111085502 Date Filed: 07/26/2024 Page: 4

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 such relief.”

Our review is de novo. See McBride v. Deer, 240 F.3d 1287, 1289

(10th Cir. 2001) (de novo review of a dismissal under § 1915A); Gagan v.

Norton, 35 F.3d 1473, 1475 (10th Cir. 1994) (de novo review of absolute

immunity). Because Butler proceeds pro se, we construe his filings

liberally, but we do not act as his advocate. See Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d

925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008).

I. Criminal Case: Official-Capacity Claim

Butler seeks monetary relief from Rainbolt in his official capacity with

regard to the Criminal Case. In bringing the Criminal Case, Rainbolt acted

as an official of the State of Oklahoma. See Laidley v. McClain, 914 F.2d

1386, 1392 (10th Cir. 1990) (stating that “under Oklahoma law the district

attorney is an arm of the state”), superseded by rule on other grounds.

“Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity bars suits for money damages

against states, state agencies, and state officers in their official capacities.”

Chilcoat v. San Juan Cnty., 41 F.4th 1196, 1213 (10th Cir. 2022), cert.

denied, 143 S. Ct. 1748 (2023). Accordingly, the district court did not err in

applying § 1915A(b)(2) to dismiss the official-capacity claim based upon the

Criminal Case.

4 Appellate Case: 23-7091 Document: 010111085502 Date Filed: 07/26/2024 Page: 5

II. Criminal Case: Individual-Capacity Claim

Butler also seeks monetary relief from Rainbolt in his individual

capacity with regard to the Criminal Case. “[T]he Eleventh Amendment

does not erect a barrier against suits to impose individual and personal

liability on state officials under § 1983.” Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 30-31

(1991) (internal quotation marks omitted). But “[a]n officer in an

individual-capacity action . . . may be able to assert personal immunity

defenses, such as, for example, absolute prosecutorial immunity in certain

circumstances.” Lewis v. Clarke, 581 U.S. 155, 163 (2017).

A prosecutor is absolutely immune from civil liability for damages for

acts he undertakes “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.’” Buckley, 509 U.S. at 273; see also Imbler, 424 U.S. at 431 (“[I]n

initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State’s case, the prosecutor

is immune from a civil suit for damages under § 1983.”). The complaint

challenges Rainbolt’s conduct during plea negotiations, which is an activity

that falls within the scope of prosecutorial immunity. See Hammond v.

Bales, 843 F.2d 1320, 1321-22 (10th Cir. 1988). Rainbolt thus is entitled to

absolute prosecutorial immunity from Butler’s individual-capacity damages

claim based on the Criminal Case, and the district court did not err in

dismissing that claim under § 1915A(b)(2).

5 Appellate Case: 23-7091 Document: 010111085502 Date Filed: 07/26/2024 Page: 6

III. Civil Case

Before this court, Butler specifies that he brought claims against

Rainbolt not only as a prosecutor in the Criminal Case, but as a defense

attorney in the Civil Case. He asserts that the district court “only looked at

grounds that give Rainbolt prosecutorial im[m]unity, but failed to see

Rainbolt as defense counsel.” Aplt. Opening Br. at 4 (capitalization

omitted). We agree. The district court did not undertake the analysis

necessary to dismiss the claims based on the Civil Case due to Eleventh

Amendment immunity or prosecutorial immunity.

In the Civil Case, Rainbolt allegedly defended a county official. But

counties are not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Mahdi v.

Salt Lake Police Dep’t, 54 F.4th 1232, 1240 (10th Cir. 2022). Accordingly,

before it could apply Eleventh Amendment immunity to the official-capacity

claims based on the Civil Case, the court had to determine that Rainbolt

acted as an official of the State rather than the county. That he acted as an

official of the State in the Criminal Case does not mean that he acted as an

official of the State in the Civil Case. See Couser v. Gay, 959 F.3d 1018, 1025

(10th Cir. 2020) (“[A]n official may be considered a state official for the

purpose of one function and a municipal official for another.”). It is unclear

whether Eleventh Amendment immunity should apply here, because the

6 Appellate Case: 23-7091 Document: 010111085502 Date Filed: 07/26/2024 Page: 7

district court did not determine that Rainbolt acted as an official of the

State in the Civil Case.

Further, Rainbolt is not entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity

simply because he is an Assistant District Attorney. See Buckley, 509 U.S.

at 269 (describing the Court’s “functional approach, which looks to the

nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who

performed it” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); id. at 273

(“[T]he actions of a prosecutor are not absolutely immune merely because

they are performed by a prosecutor.”). The Supreme Court has “been quite

sparing in [its] recognition of absolute immunity, and [has] refused to

extend it any further than its justification would warrant.” Burns v. Reed,

500 U.S. 478, 487 (1991) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

The presumption is that qualified rather than absolute immunity is

sufficient to protect government officials in the exercise of their duties.” Id.

at 486-87. Accordingly, before the district court could apply prosecutorial

immunity to the claims based on the Civil Case, it had to determine that

the complaint challenged functions that warrant absolute immunity. It did

not make that determination.

For these reasons, we vacate the dismissal of the claims based on the

Civil Case and remand for further proceedings.

7 Appellate Case: 23-7091 Document: 010111085502 Date Filed: 07/26/2024 Page: 8

IV. Assessment of a Strike

Because we vacate the district court’s dismissal order in part and

remand for further proceedings on the claims based on the Civil Case, we

also vacate the court’s assessment of a strike under § 1915(g). See Thomas

v. Parker, 672 F.3d 1182, 1183 (10th Cir. 2012) (“Because the statute refers

to dismissals of ‘actions,’ as opposed to ‘claims,’ it is well established that a

partial dismissal based on one of the grounds enumerated in § 1915(g) is

generally not a proper basis for assessing a strike.”). Once the district court

disposes of the remanded claims, it may consider whether it is appropriate

to re-assess a strike.

CONCLUSION

We affirm the dismissal of the claims based upon the Criminal Case,

but we vacate the dismissal of the claims based upon the Civil Case and

remand for further proceedings. We deny Butler’s “Motion to File Grievance

Against Defendant,” in which Butler requests sanctions against Rainbolt.

Entered for the Court

Richard E.N. Federico Circuit Judge