Sutherland v. United States Attorneys, Louisville
3:25-cv-00076
W.D. Ky.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Eric Sutherland, proceeding pro se, brought civil claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens, alleging constitutional violations relating to his state and federal criminal prosecutions.
- Sutherland was charged and arrested in both state and federal court for substantially identical offenses and claims federal officials falsified records to show state charges were dismissed prior to federal prosecution.
- He alleged unlawful detention, malicious prosecution, due process violations (including Brady violations), and prosecutorial misconduct by state and federal authorities.
- Named defendants included Andy Beshear (former Kentucky Attorney General) in his official capacity, federal prosecutors, and related offices.
- Sutherland sought immediate correction of records, dismissal of charges, release from custody, and over $12 million in damages.
- The court conducted its required screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A to determine whether the complaint stated any claim for relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| § 1983 official capacity claims against Beshear | Beshear (as AG) was responsible for authorizing/failing to prevent unlawful prosecution | State officials in official capacity are not "persons" under §1983 and are immune | Dismissed for failure to state a claim and Eleventh Amendment immunity |
| Bivens claims against federal offices | Federal offices participated in fabricating records and wrongful prosecution | Bivens not permitted against federal agencies; sovereign immunity | Dismissed; no Bivens action against agencies |
| Bivens/§1983 claims against prosecutors in individual capacity | Prosecutors acted unconstitutionally and caused continued unlawful confinement | Prosecutors entitled to absolute immunity for actions in judicial phase | Dismissed; absolute prosecutorial immunity applies |
| Claims challenging conviction or sentence (all defendants) | Irregularities render continued incarceration unconstitutional | Plaintiff's conviction stands and has not been invalidated | Claims barred under Heck v. Humphrey |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard for plausibility of claims)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for motions to dismiss)
- Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (state officials/section 1983)
- Monell v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (no respondeat superior for §1983 liability)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (bar on §1983 claims that would undermine existing conviction)
- Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478 (absolute prosecutorial immunity)
- Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (official capacity claims as claims against the state)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (prosecutorial immunity)