Russell Allen Brown v. Sean Featherstun, Blake Jennings, Brian Merrell, Grace Gray, Randy Pollard, Judge Jerry E. Crisel, Judge Johanna Beth Webber, Troy Hails, Aaron Johnson, John Martin Keoughan, Jason Herzig, Scott Rosenblum, Benedict Song, Thomas M. Maag

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois dismissed Russell Allen Brown’s second amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The court held that several defendants were protected by prosecutorial, judicial, defense-counsel, or potentially court-clerk immunity, and that the remaining allegations concerning a search and seizure were insufficiently specific. The court also denied Brown’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and several pending motions, entered judgment, and closed the case.

Holdings

1. The second amended complaint failed to state a valid constitutional claim and was dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
2. Prosecutors and a law student acting in prosecutorial functions, defense attorneys acting in their traditional functions, judges acting in their judicial roles, and a court clerk performing administrative court functions may be protected by absolute immunity.
3. Piecemeal amendments and supplemental filings do not properly amend the operative complaint, and the court declined to consider the later filings as altering the substantive analysis.
4. Further leave to amend was denied because Brown had already received three opportunities to state his claims and additional amendment would be futile.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Brown's second amended complaint stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 sufficient to survive screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
2. Whether several defendants were immune from suit for acts performed within their traditional prosecutorial, defense-counsel, judicial, or court-clerk functions.
3. Whether Brown's later motions, supplements, and proposed supplement could be used to amend the operative complaint piecemeal.
4. Whether further leave to amend should be granted after Brown had been given three opportunities to cure the pleading deficiencies.

Disposition

dismissed