USCA11 Case: 22-11961 Date Filed: 10/26/2022 Page: 1 of 5

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-11961 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

LOUIS WAYNE RATFIELD, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus ELLEN L. COHEN, US Federal Prosecutor, STEPHANIE A. EVANS, US Federal Prosecutor, TRACY L. GOSTYLA, US Federal Prosecutor, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, USCA11 Case: 22-11961 Date Filed: 10/26/2022 Page: 2 of 5

2 Opinion of the Court 22-11961

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 9:22-cv-80609-DMM ____________________

Before JORDAN, BRASHER, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Louis Ratfield, appearing pro se, appeals the dismissal with prejudice of his Bivens1 claims alleging violations of his Fourth and Eighth Amendment rights during the prosecution of, and subse- quent incarceration for, various federal tax offenses. He argues that the district court erred in dismissing his claims for frivolity and failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Ratfield ad- ditionally argues that the district court erred in finding that the De- fendants were entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity and in finding that his claims were time-barred by the statute of limita- tions. Lastly, Ratfield contends that the district court erred in dis- missing his claims with prejudice.

1 Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). USCA11 Case: 22-11961 Date Filed: 10/26/2022 Page: 3 of 5

22-11961 Opinion of the Court 3

We review a district court’s dismissal of an in forma pauperis complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) for an abuse of discretion. Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1160 (11th Cir. 2003). A district court may dismiss an in forma pauperis action “at any time if” the claim “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary re- lief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A suit brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenges the consti- tutionality of the actions of state officials, while a Bivens suit chal- lenges the constitutionality of federal officials’ actions. Abella v. Rubino, 63 F.3d 1063, 1065 (11th Cir. 1995). We have stated that “a Bivens action is analogous to § 1983 suits against state and local officers.” Smith ex rel. Smith v. Siegelman, 322 F.3d 1290, 1297 n.15 (11th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, a federal official sued under Bivens has the same immunity as a similar state official sued for the identical violation under § 1983. Abella, 63 F.3d at 1065. Prosecutors are absolutely immune from liability for dam- ages for activities that are intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process and acts undertaken when “initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State’s case.” Imbler v. Pacht- man, 424 U.S. 409, 430-31 (1976). This absolute immunity extends to acts done in the prosecutor’s role as an advocate for the state. Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 273 (1993). USCA11 Case: 22-11961 Date Filed: 10/26/2022 Page: 4 of 5

4 Opinion of the Court 22-11961

A claim based on a respondeat superior theory of liability is insufficient to support a claim under § 1983. Polk County v. Dod- son, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981). “Supervisory officials are not vicari- ously liable under section 1983 for the unconstitutional acts of their subordinates. Plaintiffs must instead allege that the supervisor, through his own actions, violated the Constitution.” Ingram v. Ku- bik, 30 F.4th 1241, 1254 (11th Cir. 2022), cert. dismissed, 142 S. Ct. 2855 (2022) (citations omitted). Where a plaintiff brings a § 1983 claim premised on a theory of supervisory liability, the district court may properly dismiss the claim pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Henley v. Payne, 945 F.3d 1320, 1331-32 (11th Cir. 2019). Here, the district court did not err in dismissing Ratfield’s Bivens claims based on absolute prosecutorial immunity. As fed- eral prosecutors, Cohen, Gostyla, and Evans are entitled to abso- lute immunity for actions undertaken in their roles as advocates for the government. See Imbler, 424 U.S. at 430-31; Buckley, 509 U.S. at 273. According to the facts alleged in the complaint, Cohen, Ev- ans, and Gostyla prosecuted an alleged IRS violation following an indictment by a grand jury without proper authority from the Sec- retary of the Treasury. Even assuming those facts are true, Cohen, Evans, and Gostyla are entitled to absolute immunity for these ac- tions as they were acting as advocates for the government. See Buckley, 509 U.S. at 273. Ratfield’s allegations that Cohen lied dur- ing his trial are similarly protected by absolute prosecutorial im- munity as an act undertaken in presenting the government’s case. USCA11 Case: 22-11961 Date Filed: 10/26/2022 Page: 5 of 5

22-11961 Opinion of the Court 5

See Imbler, 424 U.S. at 431. Further, Ratfield’s claims against Gar- land are premised on a theory of respondeat superior, which is in- sufficient to support a claim brought under § 1983 and thus under Bivens. Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing Rat- field’s complaint. AFFIRMED.