Dudley v. Freedman et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
KARANYA MARQUIS DUDLEY 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 4:24-cv-04088
AMY FREEDMAN, Prosecuting Attorney;
MATT STEPHENS, Public Defender; JUDGE
C. JONES, Miller County District Court; JUDGE
B. HALTOM, Miller County District Court;
JUDGE W. AUTREY, Miller County District Court;
STATE OF ARKANSAS; and MILLER COUNTY
DISTRICT COURT 	DEFENDANTS
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Karanya Marquis Dudley (“Plaintiff”) filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 1, 2. Before the Court is Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss filed on October 2, 2024. ECF No. 6. On November 5, 2024, the Honorable
Susan O. Hickey referred the motion to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and
Local Rule 72.1. ECF No. 11.
Plaintiff filed an “Objection” to the Motion on December 5, 2024, which the Court will
consider as an untimely Response. ECF No. 20. 1 The Motion to Dismiss is ripe for consideration.
Based upon the Court’s review of this Motion, the Court recommends it be GRANTED.
I. 	BACKGROUND
In her Complaint, Plaintiff names Prosecuting Attorney Amy Freedman, Public Defender
Matt Stephens, Judge C. Jones, Judge B. Haltom, Judge W. Autrey, the State of Arkansas, and the
Miller County District Court as Defendants. (ECF No. 1, pp. 2-3). 	Plaintiff describes her claims,
1 Even though Plaintiff’s Response is untimely, the Court will consider the pleading in issuing this Report and
Recommendation.
Case 4:24-cv-04088-SOH Document 22 Filed 12/18/24 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
injuries, and request for relief as follows:
… [in] Miller County District Court …8-20-2024 (Tuesday) 9am-2pm court date;
when I noticed the animosity, coerced, discrimination of unfair treatment 8-22-
2024 (Thursday) police was sent to Hope Arkansas with threat of incarceration
(kidnapping) …
… 1) I was DENIED A PLEA HEARING & FORCED TO GIVE UP MY HUMAN
RIGHTS 2) The courts forced entry a deposition against my will; which
VIOLATED due process of the law …5) The courts was Bias (my voice) NEVER
got heard in the court of law for a plea hearing. Yet, I’m abused by law and threaten
jail time…According to the documents: Judge C. Jones, B. Haltom, W. Autrey
(Amy Freedman, Matt Stephens)
…I am a victim; getting victimized & traumatized This is STRESSFUL …
DEPRIVED of my enjoyment of life …
… I would like for the courts to hold these individuals that’s sworn in to hold the
constitutional law accountable for their actions made against me. (MALICE) I’m
seeking 30,000,000.00 … for ALL damages.
ECF No. 1, pp. 4-5. Plaintiff alleges claims against Defendants Freedman and Stephens in their
individual capacities only. She alleges claims against Defendants Jones, Haltom, Autrey and the
Miller County District Court in only their official capacities. Id. at pp. 2-3. The State of Arkansas
is only mentioned once in the caption of the Complaint.
Defendants argue in their Motion to Dismiss that Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed
for failing to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and improper
service under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 6. In addition, Defendants describe
the events underlying the instant lawsuit as follows:
…The plea hearing happened in Miller County Circuit Court, not District
Court…Prosecutor Freedman never had any interaction with Plaintiff at all. Public
Defender Stephens and Prosecutor Freedman were talking and negotiating on
Dudley’s plea offer in a conference room on the day of court…Plaintiff apparently
walked out of court when she did not like the plea offer that her Public Defender
relayed to her. Therefore, there was never actually a formal plea “hearing.” The
Court then issued a Bench Warrant for FTA (Failure to Appear) for Plaintiff after
she walked out of court and was not present when her case was called…
Case 4:24-cv-04088-SOH Document 22 Filed 12/18/24 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
ECF No. 7 p. 1.
II. 	APPLICABLE STANDARD
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff must allege that the Defendants acted
under color of state law, and that the actor violated a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the
Constitution. 	West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Dunham v. Wadley, 195 F.3d 1007, 1009
(8th Cir. 1999). 	Furthermore, the deprivation must be intentional; mere negligence will not
suffice to state a claim for deprivation of a constitutional right under Section 1983. 	Daniels v.
Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986); Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344 (1986).
Defendants must have been personally involved and caused the violation alleged.
“Liability under section 1983 requires a causal link to, and direct responsibility for, the deprivation
of rights. 	To establish personal liability of the supervisory defendants, [Plaintiff] must allege
specific facts of personal involvement in, or direct responsibility for, a deprivation of his
constitutional rights.” Clemmons v. Armontrout, 477 F.3d 962, 967 (8th Cir. 2007) (quoting
Mayorga v. Missouri, 442 F.3d 1128, 1132 (8th Cir. 2006)). Plaintiff’s claims shall be dismissed
for failure to state a claim if it appears beyond a doubt the Plaintiff’s complaint can prove no set
of facts to support the plaintiff’s purported cause of action. See Schaller Tel. Co. v. Golden Sky
Sys., Inc., 298 F.3d 736, 740 (8th Cir. 2002).
“In evaluating whether a pro se plaintiff has asserted sufficient facts to state a claim, we
hold ‘a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded ... to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Jackson v. Nixon, 747 F.3d 537, 541 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)). However, even a pro se Plaintiff must allege specific
facts sufficient to support a claim. Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985).
Case 4:24-cv-04088-SOH Document 22 Filed 12/18/24 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
III. 	DISCUSSION
A. Judicial Immunity – Defendants Jones, Haltom and Autrey
First, as Judges, Defendants Jones, Haltom and Autrey enjoy complete judicial immunity.
“Few doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the immunity of judges for
liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction.” Pierson v. Ray, 386
U.S. 547, 553-54 (1967) (explaining the common law principle of judicial immunity was not
abolished by Section 1983). The Supreme Court “has pronounced and followed this doctrine of
the common law for more than a century.” Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 199 (1985).
Judicial immunity is only overcome in two narrow situations: (1) if the challenged act is non-
judicial; and (2) if the action, although judicial in nature, was taken in the complete absence of all
jurisdiction. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991); Schottel v. Young, 687 F.3d 370, 373 (8th
Cir. 2012). Moreover, “[a] judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was
in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority; rather, he will be subject to
liability only when he has acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435
U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978) (citations omitted).
Plaintiff did not allege Judges Jones, Haltom, or Autrey acted outside their jurisdiction.
His only complaint is the Judges signed off on some court paperwork regarding her plea hearing
and failure to appear which certainly falls within normal judicial activity. See Woodworth v.
Hulshof, 891 F.3d 1083, 1091 (2018) (explaining that judicial immunity applies if the act
complained of is one normally performed by a judge and if the complaining party is dealing with
the judge in his judicial capacity).
B. Prosecutorial Immunity – Defendant Freedman
Next, Defendant Freedman, as prosecutor, is also immune from suit as prosecutor for
Case 4:24-cv-04088-SOH Document 22 Filed 12/18/24 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
Miller County, Arkansas. The Supreme Court established the absolute immunity of a prosecutor
from a civil suit for damages under Section 1983 “in initiating a prosecution and in presenting the
State’s case.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976). This immunity extends to all acts
that are “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.” Id. at 430.
Furthermore, immunity is not defeated by “[a]llegations of unethical conduct and improper motive
in the performance of prosecutorial functions.” Sample v. City of Woodbury, 836 F.3d 913, 916
(8th Cir. 2016). “[A] prosecutor is immune from suit even if he knowingly presented false,
misleading, 	or 	perjured 	testimony 	... 	or 	withheld 	or 	suppressed 	exculpatory 	evidence.”
Woodworth v. Hulshof, 891 F.3d 1083, 1089 (8th Cir. 2018) (internal citations omitted). Here,
there is no allegation or summary judgement proof Defendant Freeman acted outside her duties in
initiating the criminal case and presenting it the state courts.
C. Public Defender – Defendant Stephens
Defendants argue that Defendant Stephens was not properly served. Even if service had
been perfected in accordance with the law, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Stephens, as a
public defender, fail as a matter of law. “The conduct of counsel, either retained or appointed, in
representing clients, does not constitute action under color of state law for purposes of a Section
1983 violation.” Bilal v. Kaplan, 904 F.2d 14, 15 (8th Cir. 1990). See also Polk County v. Dodson,
454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981) (holding “a public defender does not act under color of state law when
performing a lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal proceeding”).
D. Sovereign Immunity – State of Arkansas
The State of Arkansas is immune from the instant lawsuit. The Arkansas Constitution
provides “[t]he State of Arkansas shall never be made a defendant in any of her courts.” Ark.
Case 4:24-cv-04088-SOH Document 22 Filed 12/18/24 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
Const. Art. 5, § 20. The State is entitled to sovereign immunity if “a judgment for the Plaintiff will
operate to control the actions of the State or subject it to liability.” Id.
Although there is an exception to sovereign immunity, it does not apply in this case. A
plaintiff 	may 	overcome 	sovereign 	immunity 	only 	if 	the 	plaintiff 	“allege[s] 	illegal 	and
unconstitutional acts in compliance with our fact-pleading rules” and merely seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief. Ark. Dep’t of Educ. v. McCoy, 2021 Ark. 136, at 7, 10, 624 S.W.3d 687, 692-
693. It is not enough for a plaintiff to claim the exception; they must “plead sufficient facts” to
persuade the court that the government acted unlawfully if those fact were true. Rutledge v.
Remmel, 2022 Ark. 86, at 6, 643 S.W.3d 5, 9. “Bare-bones allegations unsupported by law [could]
not survive an immunity defense.” Id.
Here, Plaintiff alleges a judge improperly sentenced her, but she makes no allegations
against the State of Arkansas. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against the State and the
State is entitled to sovereign immunity.
E. 	Defendant Miller County District Court
Plaintiff names the Miller County District Court as a Defendant. A “court” is not a proper
defendant in a Section 1983 case. Clark v. Clark, 984 F.2d 272, 273 (8th Cir. 1993). Even if the
“Miller County District Court” were a proper defendant, the events underlying this lawsuit
occurred in the Miller County Circuit Court and the Miller County District Court was not involved
in any of the alleged claims made by Plaintiff. Accordingly, this Complaint should be dismissed
against the Miller County District Court.
F. 	Official Capacity Claims
Furthermore, all official capacity claims asserted by Plaintiff against any of the Defendants
must fail as a matter of law. Under Section 1983, a defendant may be sued in either his personal
Case 4:24-cv-04088-SOH Document 22 Filed 12/18/24 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
capacity, or in his official capacity, or claims may be stated against a defendant in both his personal
and his official capacities. “Claims against individuals in their official capacities are equivalent to
claims against the entity for which they work; they require proof that a policy or custom of the
entity violated the plaintiff’s rights, and the only type of immunity available is one belonging to
the entity itself.” Gorman v. Bartch, 152 F.3d 907, 914 (8th Cir. 1998) (internal citations omitted).
Here, Plaintiff does not allege any policy, procedure, or custom of Miller County caused
any of her complaints. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state any official capacity claims against
any Defendant.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For these reasons, it is recommended Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6) be
GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) be dismissed without prejudice for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
The parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of the Report and Recommendation
in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 	The failure to file
timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. 	The parties
are reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by
the district court.
DATED this 18th day of December 2024.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:24-cv-04088-SOH Document 22 Filed 12/18/24 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>