Case 6:16-cv-01322-RC-JDL Document 9 Filed 05/14/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 26
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`HUBERT SEATON
`
`v.
`
`MATT BINGHAM, ET AL.
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`
`§
`
`§
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:16cv1322
`
`MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
`OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT
`
`The Plaintiff Hubert Seaton, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C.
`
`§1983 complaining of alleged violations of his constitutional rights. This Court referred the case
`
`to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and (3) and the Amended
`
`Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate
`
`Judges. The named Defendants are Smith County District Attorney Matt Bingham and two assistant
`
`district attorneys identified as “Prosecutor 1" and “Prosecutor 2.”
`
`I. Background
`Seaton’s complaint reads as follows:
`
`DA Matt Bingham failed to investigate criminal complaints filed by the Plaintiff
`against Judge Patterson and others. He failed to investigate the targeting harassment
`charges in the evading arrest with a motor vehicle charge in which the Plaintiff
`simply drove home because of prior threats that had been made against him. He
`never was speeding or evading the ofc [officer]. The ofc pulled and pointed his gun
`at the Plaintiff’s head without just cause. Bingham failed to provide the evidence
`needed to prove my innocence as requested. Occurred between 2013 and 2016.
`
`For relief, Seaton requests as follows:
`
`Overturn the illegal plea deal, investigate the civil rights violations of the DA’s
`office, Judge Jack Skeen Jr., the City Marshal, others. The Klan affiliation of the
`arresting officer. Dismiss the evading arrest with a motor vehicle charge with
`prejudice. Award the Plaintiff damages of $5,000,000.00.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-01322-RC-JDL Document 9 Filed 05/14/17 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 27
`
`On May 2, 2016, according to Smith County records, Seaton pleaded guilty to and was
`
`convicted of evading arrest or detention with a vehicle, receiving a fully probated sentence of 10
`
`years in prison. Seaton did not appeal this conviction, nor has he sought state habeas corpus relief.
`
`II. The Report of the Magistrate Judge
`
`After review of the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the
`
`lawsuit be dismissed. The Magistrate Judge observed that a district attorney and his assistants have
`
`absolute immunity from claims for monetary damages for any actions taken pursuant to their role
`
`as prosecutors in preparing for the initiation of judicial proceedings and in preparing the State’s case.
`
`This immunity extends to the prosecutor’s actions in initiating, investigating, and pursuing a
`
`criminal prosecution. The Magistrate Judge concluded that Seaton’s claims for monetary
`
`damages are barred by prosecutorial immunity.
`
`While Seaton complained that Bingham did not investigate criminal charges which he,
`
`Seaton, filed, the Magistrate Judge determined that this claim lacked merit because there is no right
`
`to have another person criminally prosecuted. To the extent Seaton complained of the legality of
`
`his conviction, the Magistrate Judge stated that such a claim sounds in habeas corpus, but Seaton
`
`has not exhausted his state court remedies. The Magistrate Judge therefore recommended that the
`
`lawsuit be dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim, with prejudice as to any monetary
`
`relief sought, but without prejudice as to Seaton’s right to challenge his conviction through any
`
`lawful means.
`
`III. Seaton’s Objections
`
`In his objections, Seaton argues that the State had no legal jurisdiction, rendering the charges
`
`and his plea deal illegal and invalid. He asserts that because the State had no legal jurisdiction, he
`
`is not obligated to seek state habeas corpus relief. Furthermore, Seaton contends that where there
`
`is no jurisdiction, there is no absolute immunity from suit.
`
`Seaton maintains that Bingham had “a legal and moral obligation” to investigate the charges
`
`against Judge Patteson. He states that there would never have been a prosecution had Bingham
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-01322-RC-JDL Document 9 Filed 05/14/17 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 28
`
`performed his duties because the District Attorney had a moral and legal obligation to establish legal
`
`jurisdiction, but chose not to do so.
`
`Seaton attaches as exhibits a copies of newspaper articles concerning charges brought against
`
`County Judge Joel Baker alleging violations of the Texas Open Meetings Act, but he fails to explain
`
`how these are pertinent to his case. He also attaches a statement by an individual named Benny
`
`Young attesting that Seaton gave him a puppy after receiving a ticket. He indicates that the puppy
`
`often ran away from home and returned to Seaton’s house. Seaton notified Young that the City of
`
`Tyler Animal Control wanted the dog, and Young gave the dog to them, but Animal Control did not
`
`tell Young why they took his dog.
`
`Seaton stated in his objections that he would provide more cause not to dismiss his case in
`
`a few days, but he did not do so. A month after filing the objections, Seaton filed a motion for
`
`appointment of counsel Two months after that, Seaton filed a motion asking that the federal court
`
`order Bingham to show proof of legal jurisdiction. He again states that he can prove the State lacked
`
`jurisdiction, but offers nothing to substantiate this assertion.
`
`IV. Discussion
`
`The Supreme Court has explained that a prosecutor’s absolute immunity will not be stripped
`
`because of action which was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority;
`
`instead, the prosecutor will be subject to liability only when he has acted in the clear absence of all
`
`jurisdiction. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978).
`
`Seaton does not make clear which prosecution he complains of. He refers in his complaint
`
`to a charge of evading arrest, but in his objections, Seaton discusses a prosecution in municipal court
`
`for failing to vaccinate a dog. See Seaton v. Tyler Municipal Court, et al., civil action no.
`
`6:16cv1271 (complaining that Judge Patteson allowed an illegal prosecution regarding Plaintiff’s
`
`unvaccinated dog); Young, et al. v. Animal Control Department, et al., civil action no. 6:17cv23
`
`(lawsuit by Seaton and Benny Young complaining that the City of Tyler Animal Control Department
`
`confiscated Benny Young’s dog without explanation); Seaton v. Kenison, et al., civil action no.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-01322-RC-JDL Document 9 Filed 05/14/17 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 29
`
`6:16cv1318 (lawsuit against animal control officer Deb Kenison for issuing him an illegal dog
`
`vaccination ticket and committing perjury at his trial on the charge); Seaton v. Director, Smith
`
`County Probation, civil action no. 6:17cv36 (habeas corpus petition challenging illegal dog
`
`vaccination ticket). Compare Seaton v. Chambliss, et al., civil action no. 6:16cv1319 (lawsuit
`
`against City Marshal Chambliss alleging an unjust arrest for the offense of evading arrest with a
`
`motor vehicle); Seaton v. Director, Smith County Probation, civil action no. 6:17cv37 (habeas
`
`corpus petition challenging conviction for evading arrest with a motor vehicle).
`
`While Seaton does not specify the conviction to which he refers, his objections fail in any
`
`event because he has offered nothing to suggest that the prosecutors acted in the clear absence of
`
`all jurisdiction in either of these prosecutions. See Kerr v. Lyford, 171 F.3d 330, 339 (5th Cir.
`
`1999), abrogated in part on other grounds by Castellano v. Fragozo, 352 F.3d 939, 948-49 (5th Cir.
`2003); Champluvier v. Couch, 309 F.App’x 902, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 2690, 2009 WL 320829
`
`(5th Cir., February 10, 2009).
`
`Seaton argues that Bingham had “a moral and legal obligation” to investigate the charges he
`
`filed against Judge Patteson, but offers no basis for this assertion. The Magistrate Judge correctly
`
`determined that Seaton has no constitutional right to have other persons criminally prosecuted.
`
`Oliver v. Collins, 914 F.2d 56, 60 (5th Cir. 1991). Seaton has not shown that he is entitled to
`appointment of counsel. Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982). His objections
`
`are without merit.
`V. Conclusion
`The Court has conducted a careful de novo review of those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s
`
`proposed findings and recommendations to which the Plaintiff objected. See 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)
`(district judge shall “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
`
`proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”) Upon such de novo review,
`
`the Court has determined the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct and the Plaintiff’s objections
`
`are without merit. It is accordingly
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-01322-RC-JDL Document 9 Filed 05/14/17 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 30
`
`ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s objections are overruled and the Report of the Magistrate
`
`Judge (docket no. 5) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further
`
`ORDERED that the above-styled civil action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as
`
`frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted as to the Plaintiff’s claims
`
`for monetary damages, but WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the Plaintiff’s right to challenge his
`
`conviction by any lawful means. It is further
`
`ORDERED that all motions which may still be pending in this civil action are hereby
`
`DENIED.
`
`5
`
`