Abdul Nedab v. BARBARA LITTEN On Appeal From the United States District Court For the Western…

Judge Roth assumed senior status on May 31, 2006.*
We assume that the District Court intended to cite 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).**
DPS-163 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-5058
ABDUL NEDAB,
Appellant
v.
BARBARA LITTEN
_______________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 05-cv-00221E)
District Judge: Honorable Sean J. McLaughlin
_______________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
March 23, 2006
Before: FUENTES, VANANTWERPEN and ROTH , Circuit Judges*
(Filed June 19, 2006)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Appellant Abdul Nedab appeals from a District Court order dismissing his case as
“legally frivolous in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).” The Appellee has filed a**

-- 1 of 3 --

In the past year, Nedab has filed several lawsuits in the District Court for the***
Western District of Pennsylvania, all relating in part to the alleged beating. See Nedab v.
Neal, Civ. No. 06-cv-00007 (W.D. Pa); Nedab v. Lencer, Civ. No. 06-cv-00054 (W.D.
Pa.); Nedab v. Beard, Civ. No. 05-cv-00405 (W.D. Pa.); and Nedab v. Beard, Civ. No.
06-cv-00035 (W.D. Pa.) (naming well over 100 defendants).
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and exercise plenary review. See****
Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999).
2
motion for summary action. Because no substantial question is presented, we will grant
the Appellee’s motion and summarily affirm. L.A.R. 27.4.
In his complaint, Nedab alleges that several guards at SCI-Forest, along with a
local officer, beat him on March 3, 2005, injuring him severely. He claims that the***
incident was recorded on the prison’s video system. He seeks monetary, declaratory, and
injunctive relief against the Tionesta District Attorney, Barbara Litten, on the grounds
that she failed to investigate his private criminal complaint against the guards, and that
she failed to bring criminal charges against them. Adopting a Magistrate Judge’s report
and recommendation, the District Court dismissed the complaint holding that Litten’s
activities are intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process and,
thus, receive absolute immunity. This appeal followed.****
We agree with the District Court that Litten is entitled to absolute immunity for all
claims related to her decision not to prosecute. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 420
(1976). To the extent that Nedab’s complaint can be read to allege violations connected
to investigatory or administrative functions, he cannot maintain a section 1983 suit
because the facts of his complaint do not demonstrate that any constitutional right has

-- 2 of 3 --

3
been violated. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001); Wright v. City of Phila.,
409 F.3d 595, 599-600 (3d Cir. 2005).”

-- 3 of 3 --