Harper v. Georges

Background

Patrick Roy Harper sued Peter Georges and other defendants. The opinion refers to claims concerning multiple prosecutors and an investigator involved in Harper’s case. The initial complaint was hundreds of pages long and difficult to follow. After it was dismissed, Harper was allowed to amend it by removing extraneous matters and alleging enough facts to state a claim. The amended complaint was clearer about the events forming the basis of the lawsuit.

Reasons for Dismissal

The court held that the amended complaint did not allege enough factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief. The court said the facts needed to support the causes of action were either absent or merely conclusory. As an example, Harper asserted that there had been a “malicious prosecution” but did not describe facts that, if true, would support relief for due-process violations.

The court also held that the action was barred by the rule from Heck v. Humphrey. The court explained that Harper claimed the prosecutors’ and investigator’s actions were unconstitutional in a way that would make his later conviction invalid, but Harper had not shown or alleged that the conviction had been invalidated.

Finally, the court stated that, to the extent Harper sued state prosecutors in their individual capacities for damages, those prosecutors were immune from personal liability for the conduct at issue.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. It stated that, although the amended complaint was clearer, it still plainly failed to state a viable claim for relief. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.