Harper v. Wargo

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois dismissed Eazs A. Harper’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 prisoner complaint following preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court held that claims against the judge and prosecutors were barred by absolute immunity, claims against appointed counsel were not actionable under § 1983, the FOIA-related claim failed to state a constitutional claim, and damages claims concerning Harper’s conviction were barred by Heck v. Humphrey. The court dismissed the Heck-barred claims without prejudice, dismissed the remaining claims with prejudice, denied the motion for preliminary injunction as moot, assessed a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and directed the clerk to close the case.

Holdings

1. A judge is absolutely immune from § 1983 damages liability for judicial acts, including rulings made during the criminal case and the alleged failure to recuse.
2. State prosecutors are absolutely immune from § 1983 damages claims arising from initiating a prosecution and presenting the state's case.
3. Harper's trial and appellate attorneys were not proper defendants under § 1983.
4. Harper failed to state a federal constitutional claim against the Illinois State Police FOIA officer for failing to provide documents because Illinois FOIA governs requests to state agencies, § 1983 does not enforce state law, and Illinois FOIA does not provide a cause of action against an individual employee.
5. A state prisoner may not maintain a § 1983 damages claim when success would necessarily imply the invalidity of an outstanding conviction or sentence unless the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated through an authorized mechanism.
6. A state prisoner seeking to challenge the validity of a conviction or sentence must proceed through federal habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after exhausting available state-court remedies; a § 1983 action cannot provide a new trial or dismissal of the conviction.
7. Harper was not entitled to a preliminary injunction compelling production of the requested documents because his FOIA theory did not state a viable claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the judge and prosecutors were immune from Harper's § 1983 damages claims based on judicial and prosecutorial acts.
2. Whether Harper's trial and appellate attorneys could be sued under § 1983.
3. Whether Harper stated a viable § 1983 due-process claim against a state FOIA officer for failing to provide requested records.
4. Whether Harper's damages claims based on alleged fabrication of evidence and suppression of exculpatory evidence were barred by Heck v. Humphrey because success would necessarily imply the invalidity of his outstanding conviction or sentence.
5. Whether Harper could obtain a new trial or dismissal of his conviction through a § 1983 action rather than a federal habeas petition.
6. Whether Harper was entitled to a preliminary injunction compelling production of documents under Illinois FOIA.

Disposition

dismissed