Arrington v. Street
- Michael Davis
- 0:22-cv-02362
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Arrington v. Street, Judge Davis dismissed the case with prejudice, denied fee-waiver status, and required payment of the filing fee.
Gideon C. Arrington, II, must pay the $344.00 unpaid filing-fee balance after the court denied his application to proceed without paying the fee; the defendants received dismissal based on immunity.
What happened
Arrington v. Street involved Gideon C. Arrington, II, who represented himself and objected to a recommendation that his case be dismissed because the defendants were immune from suit.
Arrington argued that prosecutors should not receive complete immunity because they allegedly manufactured false evidence. The court said that, even under a lesser form of immunity, Arrington presented no evidence showing that the defendants violated a clearly established legal right.
Judge Davis adopted the recommendation and dismissed the case with prejudice under the prisoner-screening statute. The court also denied Arrington’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee and ordered him to pay the remaining $344.00 balance.
The detailed version
- Arrington v. Street · No. 0:22-cv-02362
- Michael Davis
- Jan. 17, 2023
Background
Gideon C. Arrington, II, represented himself in a case against Dyanna L. Street, Anthony C. Palumbo, Wade A. Kish, and Kelsey R. Kelly, whom he sued in their individual and personal capacities. The matter came before the District Court after United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty issued an October 25, 2022 Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal with prejudice based on judicial and prosecutorial immunity. Arrington filed an objection on November 9, 2022.
Court’s analysis
Arrington argued that the prosecutorial defendants were not entitled to absolute immunity because, he said, their alleged manufacture of false evidence “shocks the conscience” and was a “brutal and inhumane abuse of official power.” The court stated that even if the defendants were entitled only to qualified immunity—a protection from damages for discretionary conduct that does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights—they would still be immune in this case. The court found that Arrington presented no evidence showing that the defendants violated those standards and distinguished the earlier case he cited because that case involved substantial evidence.
The court conducted an independent review of the record as required by federal law and adopted Judge Docherty’s Report and Recommendation.
Disposition
The court ordered that the matter be dismissed with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. It denied Arrington’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee, ordered him to pay the unpaid $344.00 balance of the statutory filing fee as required by law, and directed the clerk to notify the authorities at the institution where Arrington was confined about the payment requirement. Judge Michael J. Davis signed the order on January 17, 2023.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.