James R. Hunter v. Theodora Paul, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Arizona dismisses James R. Hunter’s pro se prisoner civil-rights complaint against medical providers, defense counsel, insurers, and related entities. The court grants in forma pauperis status but finds that the claims fail to state a claim, are barred in part by absolute immunity, and are legally frivolous or malicious. The dismissal is without leave to amend and may count as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Holdings

1. Government attorneys performing acts intimately associated with the judicial phase of litigation, and witnesses for testimony in judicial proceedings, are absolutely immune from damages liability. The court applied that principle to dismiss the claims against Paul, Coronado, Pfingston, Barnes, Chappel, and Broening, Oberg, Woods & Wilson.
2. A private entity performing a traditional public function such as providing medical care to prisoners may be liable under § 1983 only when the plaintiff alleges that a constitutional violation resulted from a policy, decision, or custom promulgated or endorsed by the entity.
3. A prisoner complaint must be dismissed at screening when it is legally frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief from an immune defendant.
4. Leave to amend may be denied when the defects in a pro se complaint cannot be cured by additional allegations consistent with the challenged pleading; here, amendment would be futile.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint stated a plausible First Amendment access-to-courts claim based on the alleged withholding and use of medical records.
2. Whether the complaint stated a plausible First Amendment retaliation claim.
3. Whether defendants involved in representing parties or participating in the related litigation were entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability.
4. Whether the private medical entities could be liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 absent allegations of an actionable policy or custom.
5. Whether the complaint should be dismissed without leave to amend as futile.

Disposition

dismissed