The opinion of the court was delivered by: Bua, District Judge.
The matter before the court is a pro se prisoner civil rights action
brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff, Clifford Osborne,
brings this action against various defendants, both public officials and
private actors, for alleged deprivations of his right to due process in
the conduct of his criminal trial. Presently before the court are the
motions to dismiss of the various parties.
Plaintiff's pro se complaint alleges that during the course of his
criminal trial for the offense of murder, various public officials and
private actors engaged in activities which prevented the full and fair
of the facts surrounding the crime, specifically those facts which
related to plaintiff's defense of self defense. In essence, plaintiff
alleges that due to the efforts of the named defendants, he was unable to
present evidence of an alleged burglary of his office which allegedly
precipitated the homicide for which he was charged. Plaintiff alleges that
the then State's Attorney, Bernard Carey, withheld evidence of the
burglary in the criminal trial; that his privately retained attorney, Sam
Adam, also intentionally withheld evidence of the burglary; and that
Circuit Judge Olson signed a warrant for plaintiff's arrest and denied
him bond. In addition, plaintiff alleges that various police officers,
Officers Breckenridge, Bolden, Serpe and Baldree, testified falsely in an
effort to obtain plaintiff's conviction. Finally, plaintiff alleges that
Leonard Richman (apparently plaintiff's employer), and other unknown
private actors, used their "influence with Cook County State's Attorney."
The court has carefully reviewed plaintiff's complaint and has
attempted to liberally construe the sparse allegations contained
therein. The court finds, however, that notwithstanding the liberal
construction afforded pro se prisoner complaints, the instant complaint
must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. See Tarkowski v. Bartlett Realty Co., 644 F.2d 1204 (7th Cir.
Plaintiff's allegations related to State's Attorney Carey and Judge
Olson must be dismissed as these parties enjoy absolute immunity from
damage actions under § 1983 in the performance of their
responsibilities as prosecutor and judge respectively. See Imbler v.
Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976); Pierson v.
Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1976). As the plaintiff
has failed to allege that the conduct of these defendants was beyond the
scope of their official responsibilities, these claims must be
Similarly, plaintiff's allegations related to the alleged false
testimony of Officers Breckenridge, Bolden, Serpe and Baldree must also
be dismissed. Just as prosecutors and judges enjoy absolute immunity in
§ 1983 actions, witnesses, including police officers, also are
entitled to absolute immunity. Briscoe v. LaHue, 663 F.2d 713 (1981).
Because plaintiff's allegations concerning Officers Breckenridge,
Bolden, Serpe and Baldree are related to their conduct as witnesses,
these claims must also be dismissed.
Plaintiff's allegations against defendants Adam and Richman also fail
to state a claim, Plaintiff's allegations are insufficient to set forth
facts suggesting a conspiracy between the state officials and these
private defendants. In addition, there are no allegations of fact
suggesting a racial or other invidiously discriminatory animus behind the
private defendants' alleged conspiracy. For these reasons, plaintiff's
complaint fails to state a claim against these private actors under
either § 1983 or § 1985(3). Briscoe v. LaHue, 663 F.2d 713, 723
For the reasons stated, plaintiff's complaint is dismissed.
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw ...