Webster v. Henry

• Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
• Decided: July 24, 2019
• Docket: 3:19-cv-00112
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JONESBORO DIVISION GARY LEON WEBSTER PLAINTIFF ADC #114018

No. 3:19-cv-112-DPM

CHARLENE HENRY, Prosecuting DEFENDANT Attorney, Jonesboro ORDER

1. The Court must screen Webster’s complaint, as amended. No 1, No 8 & Ne 10; 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Webster sued prosecuting attorney Henry in her personal and official capacities. Ne 10. He alleges Henry “did badger the judge .. . relentlessly” in contradiction to a sworn witness's testimony. Ne 8 & Ne 10. But a prosecutor is absolutely immune from suit in her personal capacity for acts taken as an advocate for the State. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430-31 (1976). And Webster's official capacity claim for damages is barred by the Eleventh Amendment because it’s the equivalent of suing the State of Arkansas. Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989); Morstad v. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 147 F.3d 741, 743-44 (8th Cir. 1998). 2. Webster also seeks prospective injunctive relief: he asks that his sentences in cases Henry prosecuted against him be reversed and

that all court proceedings in which she acted as a prosecutor be voided. Ne 8 & No 10. But if Webster wants to challenge his confinement, then he must do so in a habeas corpus petition, not a § 1983 suit. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). 3. Webster’s complaint will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a clam. This dismissal counts as a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). An in forma pauperis appeal from this Order and accompanying Judgment will not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). So Ordered.

D.P. Marshall ¢ United States District Judge — 24 Duby 2019

Bes