Evans v. Zubrensky

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JOSEPH M. EVANS, :

:

Plaintiff, :

v. : Civil Action No. 22-0713 (UNA)

:

AMY ZUBRENSKY, :

:

Defendant. :

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The Court construes plaintiff’s pro se complaint as one under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), against the Assistant United States Attorney who prosecuted the criminal case against him. This defendant is absolutely immune from suit. See, e.g., Jones v. District of Columbia, No. 1:21-CV-01696, 2021 WL 5564631, at *1 n.1 (D.D.C. Nov. 23, 2021) (finding that the Assistant United States Attorney who prosecuted plaintiff is immune from suit); Lovelien v. United States, 422 F. Supp. 3d 341, 349 (D.D.C. 2019) (finding that counts of complaint challenging decision to prosecute “fall[] within the scope of absolute immunity”), aff’d, 853 F. App’x 676 (D.C. Cir. 2021); Morris v. U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, 62 F. Supp. 3d 67, 75–76 (D.D.C. 2014) (dismissing Bivens claims against United States Attorney and Assistant United States Attorney “stem[ming] from the U.S. Attorney’s arguments made as the government’s advocate in post-conviction proceedings” on absolute immunity grounds), aff’d, 696 F. App’x 515 (D.C. Cir. 2017); see also Atherton v. District of Columbia Office of the Mayor, 567 F.3d 672, 683 (D.C. Cir. 2009).

2

The Court, therefore, will grant plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. An Order is issued separately. DATE: March 28, 2022 /s/

AMIT P. MEHTA

United States District Judge