CLARK v. SAWYER
2:22-cv-03658-NIQA
| E.D. Pa. | Oct 26, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Dorian Clark (aka Steven Jacobs), a pretrial detainee at Curran-Fromhold Correctional Facility, sued pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 naming Judge Stephanie Sawyer as the sole defendant.
- Clark alleges Judge Sawyer "requested punishment" by directing the Adult Probation & Parole Department to perform a competency evaluation on February 17, 2022, causing emotional distress and cruel and unusual punishment.
- The Mental Health Evaluation (March 10, 2022) by Dr. James G. Jones found Clark competent to assist in his defense; the evaluation was requested by Judge Sawyer.
- Clark seeks discharge from prison and restoration of liberty in relation to his pending state criminal case (CP-51-CR-0001880-2021); his trial was set for November 17, 2022.
- The District Court granted Clark leave to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed the Complaint in full under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial immunity for Judge Sawyer | Sawyer ordered probation/parole action and competency eval; thus liable for cruel and unusual punishment | Judge acted in judicial capacity; actions are judicial functions and she has absolute immunity | Dismissed — Judge entitled to absolute judicial immunity; dismissal with prejudice; amendment futile |
| Liability of Adult Probation & Parole Dept | Department carried out Judge's request and punished Clark | State agency is not a "person" under § 1983 and is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity | Dismissed with prejudice — not a proper § 1983 defendant; Eleventh Amendment bars suit |
| Request for release/discharge from custody | Seeks discharge and restoration of liberty as relief in this § 1983 action | Release must be sought via habeas corpus, not § 1983; exhaustion required | Dismissed — claim for release is not cognizable in § 1983; habeas is the proper vehicle |
| IFP status and screening under § 1915 | Clark unable to pay fees; seeks IFP | Court may grant IFP but must screen complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim | IFP granted for filing; complaint screened and dismissed for failure to state a claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: plausibility requirement)
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (§ 1983 requires a person acting under color of state law)
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (judicial immunity for acts within judicial capacity)
- Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (states and state agencies are not "persons" under § 1983)
- Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236 (3d Cir. 1999) (§ 1915 screening standard parallels Rule 12(b)(6))
- Haybarger v. Lawrence Cty. Adult Prob. & Parole, 551 F.3d 193 (3d Cir. 2008) (Pennsylvania judicial districts and probation departments entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity)
- Figueroa v. Blackburn, 208 F.3d 435 (3d Cir. 2000) (sufficient subject-matter jurisdiction for judicial immunity purposes)