United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, 2021

Davis v. Handie

Davis v. Handie
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas · Decided August 5, 2021
Davis v. Handie

Trial Court Opinion

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, 21 F.3d 859, 861 (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, 667 F. Supp. 2d 1058, 1061 (D. Minn. 2009).

Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for either § 1985 or § 1986 relief because that Liscomb v. Boyce, 954 F.3d 1151, 1155-56 (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, 15 F.3d 107, 108 (8th Cir. 1994); public defenders similarly cannot be sued for their actions as public defenders, Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 321 (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, 974 F.2d 81, 82 (8th Cir. 1992).

IT IS SO ORDERED this Sth day of August, 2021.

Barer Ww IVe

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.