Freeman A. Mesteth v. Honorable Heidi L. Linngren, Presiding Judge, Matthew T. Stephens, Attorney, Honorable Eric Kelderman, Circuit Court Judge, in their individual and official capacities, and Honorable Janki Sharma, Magistrate Judge

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota granted Freeman A. Mesteth leave to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed his § 1983 complaint with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). The court held that the judicial defendants were immune, the complaint failed to state a claim against one defendant, and claims concerning Mesteth’s pending state criminal proceedings were barred by Younger abstention. The dismissal was designated a first strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Holdings

1. Judicial immunity barred the claims against Judges Linngren and Sharma because the alleged conduct involved judicial functions and plaintiff did not allege that either judge acted outside a judicial capacity or in the complete absence of jurisdiction.
2. The complaint failed to state a claim against Judge Kelderman because it alleged no action by him.
3. A person in custody may not use a § 1983 action to challenge the fact or duration of confinement; such claims must be presented to the court with jurisdiction over the criminal case or through habeas corpus.
4. Younger abstention barred the claims against Stephens concerning plaintiff's ongoing state criminal proceedings because the state case was pending, implicated important state interests, and provided an adequate opportunity to raise relevant federal questions.
5. The complaint was subject to summary dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b) because it failed to state a claim, sought relief from immune defendants, and included claims barred by abstention.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint stated a viable § 1983 claim against the defendant judges based on their alleged failure to appoint substitute counsel or respond to plaintiff's correspondence.
2. Whether the complaint stated a claim against Judge Kelderman when it alleged no action by him.
3. Whether plaintiff could use § 1983 to challenge his ongoing pretrial detention and alleged denial of a speedy trial.
4. Whether federal abstention was required under Younger because plaintiff's state criminal case was ongoing and provided an opportunity to raise the relevant claims.
5. Whether the complaint was subject to dismissal under the PLRA screening provisions.

Disposition

dismissed