Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 72 views

    Morgan Allen Armstrong v. Michael F. Andrews, 11th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case involving Morgan Armstrong filing a complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against various officials involved in his state criminal proceeding. The district court dismissed Armstrong's complaint for failure to state a claim. The appeals court affirmed, finding that the judge and prosecutors were entitled to absolute immunity for their actions in the case. The appeals court also found Armstrong failed to state a claim against the remaining defendants.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Morgan Allen Armstrong v. Michael F. Andrews, 11th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    72 views3 pages
    This document summarizes a court case involving Morgan Armstrong filing a complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against various officials involved in his state criminal proceeding. The district court dismissed Armstrong's complaint for failure to state a claim. The appeals court affirmed, finding that the judge and prosecutors were entitled to absolute immunity for their actions in the case. The appeals court also found Armstrong failed to state a claim against the remaining defendants.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2016-03-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-12683

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a court case involving Morgan Armstrong filing a complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against various officials involved in his state criminal proceeding. The district court dismissed Armstrong's complaint for failure to state a claim. The appeals court affirmed, finding that the judge and prosecutors were entitled to absolute immunity for their actions in the case. The appeals court also found Armstrong failed to state a claim against the remaining defendants.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    72 views3 pages

    Morgan Allen Armstrong v. Michael F. Andrews, 11th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case involving Morgan Armstrong filing a complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against various officials involved in his state criminal proceeding. The district court dismissed Armstrong's complaint for failure to state a claim. The appeals court affirmed, finding that the judge and prosecutors were entitled to absolute immunity for their actions in the case. The appeals court also found Armstrong failed to state a claim against the remaining defendants.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 3

    Case: 15-12201

    Date Filed: 03/18/2016

    Page: 1 of 3

    [DO NOT PUBLISH]

    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    Nos. 15-12201; 15-12683
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 8:15-cv-01015-JDW-TGW

    MORGAN ALLEN ARMSTRONG,


    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    MICHAEL F. ANDREWS,
    Honorable Judge,
    M. E. HALKITIS,
    RYAN MCGEE,
    Asst. State Attorney,
    MARK MOE,
    Major Crimes Detective (Retired),
    BRENDA MCBEL,
    Deputy Clerk of Court,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    ________________________
    Appeals from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Florida
    ________________________
    (March 18, 2016)

    Case: 15-12201

    Date Filed: 03/18/2016

    Page: 2 of 3

    Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.


    PER CURIAM:
    Morgan Armstrong, a Florida prisoner, appeals pro se the sua sponte
    dismissal of his complaint against Judge Michael Andrews, Assistant State
    Attorney M.E. Halkitis, Assistant State Attorney Ryan McGee, retired Major
    Crimes Detective Mark Moe, and Deputy Clerk of Court Brenda McBel. See 42
    U.S.C. 1983. The district court concluded that Armstrongs allegations about the
    violation of his constitutional rights during a state criminal proceeding failed to
    state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). We affirm.
    Judges and prosecutors ordinarily enjoy absolute immunity from suits about
    actions taken in their official capacities. Judges enjoy absolute immunity for all
    actions taken in their judicial capacity except when taken in a clear absence of all
    jurisdiction. Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234, 1239 (11th Cir. 2000) (internal
    quotation marks and citation omitted). Absolute judicial immunity applies even
    when [a] judges acts are in error, malicious, or were in excess of his or her
    jurisdiction. Id. Prosecutors also enjoy absolute immunity for actions undertaken
    in the course of initiating a prosecution. Id. at 1242. But a prosecutor is not
    immune from suit if he knowingly makes false statements of fact in an affidavit.
    Jones v. Cannon, 174 F.3d 1271, 1282 (11th Cir. 1999).

    Case: 15-12201

    Date Filed: 03/18/2016

    Page: 3 of 3

    The district court correctly dismissed Armstrongs complaint. Armstrong


    alleged that Judge Andrews credited testimony that he knew was false during a
    pretrial hearing, but the judge is entitled to absolute immunity for actions
    performed in the exercise of his official duties. See Bolin, 225 F.3d at 1239; Sibley
    v. Lando, 437 F.3d 1067, 1070 (11th Cir. 2005). Prosecutor Halkitis is not liable
    for allegedly using false affidavits to secure a warrant for Armstrongs arrest
    because that act was undertaken in her role as an advocate for the State. See Bolin,
    225 F.3d at 1242. Armstrong did not allege that Halkitis knew the affidavits were
    false. And Halkitis is not liable for false statements that Armstrong alleged were
    made by Detective Moe. See Jones, 174 F.3d at 1282. Armstrong has waived any
    challenge that he could have made to the dismissal of his complaints against the
    remaining members of the prosecution team. See Henry v. Warden, 750 F.3d 1226,
    1232 (11th Cir. 2014). Armstrong does not dispute that he failed to state a claim
    against Detective Moe or that Assistant State Attorney McGee and Deputy Clerk
    McBel are immune from liability.
    We AFFIRM the dismissal of Armstrongs complaint.

    You might also like