Keaton Overton Gunnels v. Sean Sullivan, et al.

Summary

The District of New Mexico dismisses without prejudice Keaton Overton Gunnels’s pro se complaint asserting fiduciary-duty and subrogation theories against a federal judge, prosecutor, and former court clerk arising from his criminal case. The court concludes that the sovereign-citizen theories are frivolous, the allegations do not state a discernable claim, and judicial, clerk, and prosecutorial immunities bar the claims against the relevant defendants. The court denies the plaintiff’s hearing motion as moot and grants thirty days to file an amended complaint excluding immune parties.

Holdings

1. The complaint failed to state a discernable claim for relief because its sovereign-citizen terminology did not establish a cognizable legal theory and its factual allegations did not identify a specific legal claim or provide fair notice of the basis for liability.
2. The claims against the judge were barred by judicial immunity, and the claims against the retired clerk were barred by immunity applicable to nonjudicial officers performing duties integral to the judicial process.
3. The allegations against the Assistant United States Attorney failed to state a claim and were insufficient to overcome prosecutorial immunity.
4. Plaintiff was entitled to one opportunity to file an amended complaint, subject to instructions that he identify nonimmune defendants, specify who did what to whom, identify the legal and constitutional bases of his claims, and comply with Rule 8.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint stated an intelligible and plausible claim for relief under Rule 8(a), Rule 12(b)(6), or 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
2. Whether the claims against the sentencing judge and retired court clerk were barred by judicial or quasi-judicial immunity.
3. Whether the allegations against the Assistant United States Attorney stated a claim notwithstanding prosecutorial immunity.
4. Whether Plaintiff should be permitted to amend the complaint and whether his request for a hearing remained justiciable.

Disposition

dismissed