Davis v. Conner

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER WILLIAM DAVIS 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 5:24-cv-05257-TLB-MEF
JUDGE JEFF CONNOR 	DEFENDANT
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was directly assigned
to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to General Order 2024-02, but not all parties to the
action have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Accordingly,
for the purpose of preservice review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the case will automatically
be reassigned to United States District Timothy L. Brooks and referred to the undersigned for a
report and recommendation pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1) and (3).
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on December 18, 2024. 	(ECF No. 1). 	The sole named
Defendant is identified as Jeff Connor of the “Benton County West Court.” (Id. at 1-2). Review
of the Arkansas Judiciary directory indicates the Hon. Jeff Conner is a District Judge in the Benton
County West District Court, Division 4.0F
1
Plaintiff’s claim against him is that Judge Connor saw him for a bond hearing on August
2, 2024, without an attorney present. (ECF No. 1 at 4-6). Plaintiff alleges this violated his federal
constitutional rights. 	(Id.). 	Plaintiff proceeds against Judge Connor in both his official and
individual capacities. (Id. at 5). He seeks compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of
1 Arkansas Judiciary, https://arcourts.gov/content/hon-jeff-conner (last accessed March 13, 2025).
Case 5:24-cv-05257-TLB Document 8 Filed 03/14/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
$500,000. (Id. at 9). He also asks for a change in policy at the Benton County Jail which would
prohibit judges from issuing bonds without attorneys present to represent them. (Id.).
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
Under § 1915A, the Court is obliged to screen the case prior to service of process being
issued. The Court must dismiss a complaint, or any portion of it, if it contains claims that: (1) are
frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (2) seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
A claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). An action is malicious when the allegations are known to be false, or
it is undertaken for the purpose of harassing or disparaging the named defendants rather than to
vindicate a cognizable right. 	Spencer v. Rhodes, 656 F. Supp. 458, 464 (E.D.N.C. 1987); In re
Tyler, 839 F.2d 1290, 1293-94 (8th Cir. 1988). A claim fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted if it does not allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
“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)). This means “that if the essence of an allegation is
discernable, even though it is not pleaded with legal nicety, then the district court should construe
the complaint in a way that permits the layperson’s claim to be considered within the proper legal
framework.” Jackson, 747 F.3d at 544 (cleaned up). The complaint must, however, still allege
specific facts sufficient to support a claim. Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985).
Case 5:24-cv-05257-TLB Document 8 Filed 03/14/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
III. 	ANALYSIS
“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). 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) (citation
omitted). 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 (1991). 	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);
see also Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1134, 1240-42 (11th Cir. 2000) (judicial immunity applies to
Bivens actions); Schwartz v. Weinstein, 459 F.2d 882, 883 (8th Cir. 1972) (judicial immunity
applies to actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1985); Nolan v. Campbell, 369 F. Supp. 1032, (E.D. Mo.
1974) (judicial immunity applies to actions brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 & 1981).
Here, Plaintiff alleges only that Judge Connor saw him for a bond hearing without an
attorney present. 	Thus, Plaintiff’s factual allegations against Defendant Connor are for actions
taken in his judicial capacity. Accordingly, Judge Connor is entitled to judicial immunity.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, 	it 	is 	RECOMMENDED 	that 	Plaintiff’s 	Complaint 	(ECF 	No. 	1) 	be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Referral 	Status: 	This 	case 	should 	not 	remain 	referred 	as 	all 	matters 	have 	been
recommended for dismissal in this Report and Recommendation.
Case 5:24-cv-05257-TLB Document 8 Filed 03/14/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
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 14th day of March 2025.
/s/
Mark E. Ford
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 5:24-cv-05257-TLB Document 8 Filed 03/14/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>