FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION DESMOND DAVIS PLAINTIFFS ASHLEY MUNNERLYN DAVIS

v. CASE NO. 4:21-CV-00616-BSM SHARESE HANDIE, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER Plaintiffs’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. No. 1] is granted, but this case is dismissed sua sponte without prejudice. After a state dependency neglect investigation, Arkansas terminated Plaintiffs’ parental rights. Doc. 2 at 39. Plaintiffs allege that the termination of their parental rights was part of a conspiracy involving treason, judicial kickbacks, bribery, and racketeering. Doc. No. 2 at 26–30. Plaintiffs want defendants arrested and would like their children returned

to them. They also seek damages. Id. at 214–20. Demond Davis has already attempted a version of this claim against most of the same defendants, and Judge Marshall dismissed it without prejudice. Davis v. Handie, No. 4:20CV01432-DPM (Doc. 3); aff’d, No. 21-1100 (Doc. 9) (8th Cir. 2021). Davis cannot

seek redress in federal court for issues related to custody. Id. at 2 (citing Kahn v. Kahn,

(8th Cir. 1994)). Plaintiffs’ renewed attempts to set aside the state court custody determinations fail as a matter of law for the same reason. Further, plaintiffs have no authority to bring criminal charges. Kunzer v. Magill,

(D.

Minn. 2009). Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for either § 1985 or § 1986 relief because that Liscomb v. Boyce,

(8th Cir. 2020). Further, defendants are immune from suit for a number of reasons: judges cannot be sued for their decisions made in their judicial roles, Robinson v. Freeze,

(8th Cir. 1994); public defenders similarly cannot be sued for their actions as public defenders, Polk County v. Dodson,

(1981); and a suit against the individual employees is really a suit against their employer, which are not entities that can be sued under § 1983, Ketchum v. City of West Memphis, Arkansas,

(8th Cir. 1992). IT IS SO ORDERED this Sth day of August, 2021. Barer Ww IVe UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE