904 F. 2d 706 - Brown v. Crawford Brown
904 F2d 706 Brown v. Crawford Brown
904 F.2d 706
James BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
John CRAWFORD, Judge, Defendant-Appellee.
James BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Tommy HATCHER; Charlie Hood, Defendants-Appellees.
James BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Tommy HATCHER, Defendant-Appellee.
Nos. 90-5137, 90-5139 and 90-5140.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
June 19, 1990.
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
Advertisement
Before KEITH and ALAN E. NORRIS, Circuit Judges, and JOHN W. POTTER, District Judge.*
ORDER
This pro se Tennessee prisoner has filed a motion for appointment of counsel and a motion for examination of evidence in these consolidated appeals. He appeals three orders by the district court dismissing three civil rights actions filed under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. The appeals have been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. The panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not necessary. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).
James Douglas Brown complained that defendants' conduct interfered with his right to a fair trial and resulted in an unjust conviction on drug charges. In a complaint filed against a state court judge (Case No. 90-5137), Brown alleged that defendant forged the signature on a consent to search form and suppressed evidence that would show the document was a forgery. In a complaint filed against a jailer and a detective (Case No. 90-5139), Brown alleged that defendant jailer delivered an inflammatory message from the detective to a witness waiting to testify at the criminal trial; as a result, the witness refused to testify. In a separate complaint filed against the detective (Case No. 90-5140), Brown alleged that defendant gave perjured testimony concerning the validity of the consent to search form. Brown sought injunctive and monetary relief.
Upon review, we conclude that the complaints were properly dismissed as frivolous. See Neitzke v. Williams, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1831 (1989). In Case No. 90-5137, the judge is absolutely immune from suit for monetary damages. King v. Love, 766 F.2d 962, 965 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 971 (1985). In Case No. 90-5139, the claim for monetary relief was properly dismissed under the doctrine enunciated in Hadley v. Werner, 753 F.2d 514, 516 (6th Cir.1985) (per curiam). Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief is simply not warranted. Finally, the defendant sued as a witness in Case No. 90-5140, and is entitled to absolute immunity. Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 326 (1983).
Accordingly, all pending motions are denied and the district court's orders are hereby affirmed. Rule 9(b)(5), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
The Honorable John W. Potter, U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation