Lolar v. State of Oklahoma, The, 4:17-cv-00136

Background

Plaintiff Marcus Lolar, a pro se state prisoner, filed a § 1983 suit alleging false arrest/imprisonment, negligence/conspiracy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from his Osage County criminal prosecution and conviction.
Defendants named: State of Oklahoma; Stuart L. Tate (special judge who presided at preliminaries); Mike Fisher (Osage County Assistant District Attorney/prosecutor).
Plaintiff sought monetary relief ($25,000,000) for alleged invalid warrants, false arrest, loss of wages/family, mental anguish, and slander.
Court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2) and found pleading deficiencies and immunity defenses applicable.
The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice as to claims that would imply invalidity of convictions (Heck bar) and dismissed certain claims with prejudice where absolute immunity applied; the State was dismissed under Eleventh Amendment immunity.
The dismissal was flagged as a “prior occasion” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 1983 may be used to obtain damages/release for alleged wrongful arrest/conviction	Lolar contends his arrest/imprisonment rested on invalid/unsigned warrants and seeks relief for false arrest and related harms	Defendants assert that any § 1983 relief that would impair the validity or duration of Lolar’s conviction is barred unless conviction was invalidated	Dismissed without prejudice under Heck/Wilkinson because success would necessarily call convictions into question; habeas, not § 1983, is the proper vehicle for direct attack on confinement
Whether the State of Oklahoma is a proper § 1983 defendant	Lolar sued the State seeking relief for his alleged injuries	State asserts Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and that § 1983 does not abrogate that immunity	Claims against the State dismissed without prejudice under Eleventh Amendment immunity
Whether prosecutor Mike Fisher is liable for damages for actions in prosecution	Lolar alleges Fisher participated in wrongful arrest/imprisonment and conspiracy	Fisher invokes absolute prosecutorial immunity for actions intimately associated with the judicial phase of prosecution	Claims for money damages against Fisher dismissed with prejudice due to absolute prosecutorial immunity (Imbler)
Whether Judge Stuart Tate is liable for damages for rulings in Lolar’s criminal case	Lolar attacks judicial acts (e.g., preliminary hearing rulings) by Judge Tate	Judge invokes absolute judicial immunity for acts taken in judicial capacity	Claims for money damages against Judge Tate dismissed with prejudice under absolute judicial immunity (Mireles et al.)

Key Cases Cited

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (§ 1983 barred where success would invalidate conviction unless conviction previously invalidated)
Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005) (habeas is the proper remedy when § 1983 success would affect confinement duration)
Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (absolute prosecutorial immunity for actions intimately associated with judicial phase)
Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991) (judicial immunity protects judges for acts within judicial capacity)
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973) (habeas corpus, not § 1983, is sole remedy for prisoner seeking restoration of good-time credits/release)
Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (states are not "persons" under § 1983; § 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must contain sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim)
Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749 (2004) (success on § 1983 claims that would imply invalidity of conviction is barred)
Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070 (10th Cir. 2007) (discussing absolute immunity for judicial/prosecutorial acts)