Case 6:16-cv-01324-RC-KNM Document 10 Filed 05/03/17 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 23
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HUBERT SEATON
`
`v.
`
`RICHARD PATTESON, ET AL.
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`
`§
`
`§
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:16cv1324
`
`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 Tyler Municipal Court Judge Richard Patteson and two assistant
`
`district attorneys identified as “Prosecutor 1" and “Prosecutor 2.”
`
`I. Background
`Seaton complains that an illegal arrest warrant was issued, the State deliberately refused to
`
`notify him of the trial date in retaliation for his not dropping an illegal prosecution complaint, his
`
`appeal request was not granted, and the State had no legal right to harass or prosecute him. This
`
`resulted in an “illegal Class C felony charge” being brought against him.
`
`For relief, Seaton asked that the failure to appear charge be dismissed, all convictions from
`
`the Tyler municipal court overturned, an investigation ordered into the illegal actions of the State
`
`and the municipal court, and for actual and punitive damages of $5,000,000.00.
`
`II. The Report of the Magistrate Judge
`After review of the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the
`
`lawsuit be dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-01324-RC-KNM Document 10 Filed 05/03/17 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 24
`
`The Magistrate Judge stated that Judge Patteson had absolute immunity from monetary
`
`damages for actions taken in his judicial capacity, and the prosecutors had absolute immunity from
`
`monetary damages for actions taken in their prosecutorial capacities for actions taken in the course
`
`of initiating, investigating, and pursuing a criminal prosecution.
`
`The Magistrate Judge also observed that to the extent Seaton complained of the legality of
`
`his conviction, his claim sounds in habeas corpus, but he does not allege nor do Smith County
`
`judicial records reflect that his claims have been exhausted through the appropriate state courts,
`
`meaning his lawsuit cannot be construed as an application for the writ of habeas corpus. The
`
`Magistrate Judge further stated that Seaton cannot challenge the validity of a criminal conviction
`
`or seek the overturning of a criminal conviction through a civil rights lawsuit.
`
`III. Seaton’s Objections
`In his objections, Seaton asserts that “there is no absolute immunity where (1) the State lacks
`
`legal jurisdiction (2) where a criminal act is alleged.” He maintains that “the Court has not looked
`
`at the evidence and therefore cannot judge the validity of the complaint without being prejudicial
`
`against the Plaintiff.”
`
`The Supreme Court has held that judicial immunity is not overcome by allegations of bad
`
`faith or malice, and immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously or
`
`corruptly. Judicial immunity is overcome only in two sets of circumstances - where the judge is not
`
`acting in his judicial capacity, or where the judge acts in the “complete absence of all jurisdiction.”
`Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991).
`
`The Fifth Circuit broadly construes the term “jurisdiction,” explaining that where a court has
`
`some subject matter jurisdiction, this is sufficient jurisdiction for immunity purposes. Kemp ex re.
`
`Kemp v. Perkins, 324 F.App’x 409, 2009 WL 1259024 (5th Cir., May 7, 2009), citing Adams v.
`McIlhaney, 764 F.2d 294, 297 (5th Cir. 1985). If a judge does not clearly lack all subject matter
`
`jurisdiction, he does not clearly lack all jurisdiction. Holloway v. Walker, 765 F.2d 517, 523 (1985);
`
`Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 335, 352, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1871).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-01324-RC-KNM Document 10 Filed 05/03/17 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 25
`
`Seaton offers nothing to suggest that Judge Patteson or the Tyler Municipal Court lacked all
`
`subject matter jurisdiction over the case in which he was convicted. His contention that immunity
`
`does not apply “where a criminal act is alleged” lacks support in the law. Seaton does not
`
`specifically mention the prosecutors in his objections and his allegations are insufficient to
`
`overcome prosecutorial immunity in any event. Seaton’s objections are without merit.
`
`III. 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
`
`ORDERED the Plaintiff’s objections are overruled and the Report of the Magistrate Judge
`
`(docket no. 7) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further
`
`ORDERED the above-styled civil action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous
`
`and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. This dismissal is without prejudice
`
`as to the Plaintiff’s right to challenge his conviction by any lawful means. It is further
`
`ORDERED any and all motions which may be pending in this civil action are hereby
`
`DENIED.
`
`So ORDERED and SIGNED this 3rd day of May, 2017.
`
`
`
`3
`
`