The opinion of the court was delivered by: Aspen, District Judge:
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Joe Woods ("Woods"), a prisoner at the Stateville Correctional
Center, brings this pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
asking damages, declaratory relief, and a new trial for
the alleged violation of his federal constitutional rights.
Named as defendants are the State's Attorney of Cook County,
his immediate predecessor, and three assistant state's
attorneys who were actively involved in the criminal
prosecution of Woods. Before the Court is defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons that follow, the
motion is granted.*fn1
A prosecuting attorney has absolute quasi-judicial immunity
from damages for those activities intimately associated with
the judicial phase of the criminal process. Imbler v.
Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976).
The failure to disclose material evidence is a prosecutorial
act of misconduct intimately associated with the judicial phase
of the criminal process. Talley v. Crosson, 663 F.2d 713,
721-22 (7th Cir. 1981). Therefore, the Court grants defendants'
motion to dismiss Woods' claim for damages on the grounds of
Woods' claim for injunctive relief, a new trial, is also
unavailable in this Section 1983 action. Habeas corpus is the
exclusive federal remedy for a state prisoner who seeks to
challenge the fact or duration of his confinement. Preiser v.
Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973).
Accordingly, the claim for a new trial is dismissed without
prejudice to Woods' right to pursue relief under
28 U.S.C. § 2254.*fn2
Woods' remaining claim seeks a declaratory judgment against
defendants' alleged practice of failing to produce exculpatory
evidence contained in unofficial "street files" maintained by
Chicago law enforcement officials. With respect to this claim,
defendants note the pendency of another suit, Palmer v. City
of Chicago, 562 F. Supp. 1067 (N.D.Ill. 1983). As in this
action, Palmer seeks injunctive and declaratory relief to
remedy alleged constitutional abuses flowing from the
maintenance of secret police "street files." Palmer was filed
on behalf of two subclasses, one of which consists of those
persons convicted of criminal offenses in the Circuit Court of
Cook County and sentenced to probation or imprisonment. Woods
is thus a member of this subclass. In an order dated March 31,
1983, Judge Milton I. Shadur concluded that Palmer was
properly maintained as a class action under Rule 23(b)(2) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. 562 F. Supp. at
1075. Furthermore, on April 27, 1983, Judge Shadur entered a
preliminary injunction which, in effect, grants plaintiff the
relief he seeks against the State's Attorney of Cook County in
As a member of the subclass, Woods will be bound by the
resolution of the equitable and declaratory claims asserted in
Palmer. Brown v. Vermillion, 593 F.2d 321 (8th Cir. 1979).
Finding that the claim for declaratory relief that Woods raises
in this action is encompassed by the litigation in the Palmer
class action, the Court dismisses the declaratory claim without
prejudice. See Bryan v. Werner, 516 F.2d 233, 239 (3d Cir.
In conclusion, the Court grants defendants' motion to dismiss
the complaint and directs that judgment enter dismissing ...