Opinion
Case: 1:16-cv-00181
02-03-2016
MICHAEL SHENEMAN, Plaintiff, v. A.U.S.A. BARBARA BROOK, et al, Defendants.
Assigned To : Unassigned
Assign. Date : 2/4/2016
Description: Pro Se Gen. Civil MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and his pro se complaint. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the complaint.
The plaintiff alleges that defendants entered into "a scheme to wrongfully convict" him. Compl. at 2 (page numbers designated by the Court). For example, he alleges, the prosecutor himself made "false and misleading statements" to the jury and had a witness "further misinform the jury." Id. In general, he asserts, "[t]he trial and investigation [preceding it were acts] of willfull [sic] blindness as to the truth," id., that he "did not engage in wire fraud," id. at 3. Because defendants allegedly deprived him of his right to a fair trial, see id. at 2, plaintiff "seek[s] 10 million in damages," id. at 3.
Prosecutors are absolutely immune from a suit for damages, see Imbler v. Patchman, 424 U.S. 409, 427 (1976), as are witnesses who testify in court proceedings, see Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 335 (1983). Insofar as the plaintiff brings this action as an attack on his criminal conviction and sentence, this is not a subject over which the Court has jurisdiction. See, e.g., Burnell v. Office of the Attorney General of the United States, No. 1:14-cv-02206, 2014 WL 7411036, at *1 (D.D.C. Dec. 30, 2014) (dismissing plaintiff's "challenge to his criminal sentence in the guise of a civil rights complaint"), appeal filed, No. 15-5027 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 29, 2015). To the extent a remedy is available to the plaintiff, his claim must be addressed to the sentencing court in a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Taylor v. U.S. Bd. of Parole, 194 F.2d 882, 883 (D.C. Cir. 1952) (stating that a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the proper vehicle for challenging the constitutionality of a statute under which a defendant is convicted); Ojo v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 106 F.3d 680, 683 (5th Cir. 1997) (explaining that the sentencing court is the only court with jurisdiction to hear a defendant's complaint regarding errors that occurred before or during sentencing).
An Order is issued separately. DATE: February 3, 2016
/s/_________
United States District Judge