IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HARRISON DIVISION JAMES BRIAN CLARK PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 3:20-CV-03067 TONY ROGERS, Carroll County Prosecuting Attorney; and TONY PIRANI, Public Defender DEFENDANTS OPINION AND ORDER James Brian Clark, currently an inmate of the Carroll County Detention Center (“CCDC”), filed this pro se civil rights action under

. Clark proceeds in forma pauperis (“IFP”). The case is before the Court for preservice screening under the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court has the obligation to screen any complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress ; from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. I. BACKGROUND Clark has named as Defendants Tony Rogers, a prosecuting attorney for Carroll County, Arkansas, and Tony Pirani, his public defender.’ According to the allegations of the Complaint, Clark has been incarcerated in the CCDC awaiting trial since September 1, 2019. (Doc. 1 at 3). He contends he is being denied a fair and fast trial. He also alleges that on August 20, 2020, Tony Pirani filed a motion for a mental evaluation. As

1 Clark previously filed a case against these Defendants, among others, in Clark v. Allen, et al., Civil No. 3:20-cv-03062. The case was dismissed at the screening stage on October 9, 2020. (Doc. 6). Additionally, he filed a virtually identical case against these Defendants, Clark v. Rogers, et al., Civil No. 3:20-cv-3074. The case was dismissed at the screening stage on December 17, 2020. (Doc. 7).

relief, Clark seeks compensatory and punitive damages. ll. LEGAL STANDARD The Court must dismiss a complaint, or any portion of it, if it contains claims that: (1) are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (2) seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). A claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989). Acclaim fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it does not allege “eriough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell At!. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007). “In evaluating whether a pro se plaintiff has asserted sufficient facts to state a claim, we hold ‘a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded . . . to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Jackson v. Nixon,

(8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus,

(2007)). However, even a pro se Plaintiff must allege specific facts sufficient to support claim. Martin v. Sargent,

(8th Cir. 1985). lll. DISCUSSION Clark’s claims against Prosecutor Tony Rogers must be dismissed because prosecutors are immune from suit. The United States Supreme Court in /mbler v. Pachtman,

(1976), established the absolute immunity of a prosecutor from a civil suit for damages under

“in initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State’s case.” /d. at 427. This immunity extends to all acts that are “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.” /d. at 430; see

also Buckley v. Fitzsimmons,

(1993) (prosecutor acting as an advocate for the state in a criminal prosecution is entitled to absolute immunity). Clark has failed to allege Prosecutor Rogers engaged in any conduct other than actions taken in connection with his duties as a prosecuting attorney. Accordingly, Prosecutor Rogers is entitled to absolute immunity. See also Brodnicki v. City of Omaha,

(8th Cir. 1996) (county prosecutors were entitled to absolute immunity from suit). Public defender Tony Pirani represents Clark in his pending criminal proceeding. A § 1983 complaint must allege that each defendant, acting under color of state law, deprived plaintiff of “rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States.

; see also DuBose v. Kelly,

, 1002 (8th Cir. 1999). Public defenders do not act under color of state law while representing an individual in criminal proceedings. Polk Cnty. v. Dodson,

(1981) (neither public defenders nor privately retained defense counsel act under color of state law when performing a lawyer's traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in criminal proceedings”). Therefore, Tony Pirani is not subject to suit under § 1983. No cognizable claim is stated against him. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Clark's claims against Defendants are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The dismissal of this case constitutes a strike pursuant to

(g). The Clerk is DIRECTED to place a § 1915 strike flag on the case. Pursuant to

(a)(3), the Court certifies that any appeal from this

3 □

dismissal would not be taken in good faith. IT 1S SO ORDERED on this 5 day of January, 2021. TIMtO Ts BROOKS N#TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE