Merton E. Bond, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Jane Shams, Cabinet for Human Resources, Defendants-appellees, 891 F.2d 289 (6th Cir. 1989)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit - 891 F.2d 289 (6th Cir. 1989) Dec. 12, 1989

Before BOYCE F. MARTIN, Jr., NATHANIEL R. JONES and RALPH B. GUY, Jr., Circuit Judges.


ORDER

Plaintiff Bond appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing this civil rights case. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982). The appeal has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon consideration, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).

Bond is a prisoner at the Luther Luckett Correctional Complex in LaGrange, Kentucky. The defendants are a social worker employed by the Kentucky Cabinet for Human Resources and the Cabinet itself. In his complaint, Bond alleged that the social worker lied at Bond's criminal trial, thereby violating his constitutional rights. Bond requested $3,000,000 in damages.

The social worker is absolutely immune from liability for damages for her testimony in the judicial proceedings. See Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 330-34 (1983). The Cabinet for Human Resources, as a branch of the state, is immune from damages under the eleventh amendment. Ky.Rev.Stat. § 194.010 (Baldwin 1988); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978) (per curiam). Therefore, Bond's case lacks an arguable basis in law. See Neitzke v. Williams, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 1831 (1989).

The order of the district court is affirmed under Rule 9(b) (5), Rules of the Sixth Circuit, because the issues are not substantial and do not require oral argument.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.