Unpublished Dispositionjames Brown, Plaintiff-appellant, v. John Crawford, Judge, Defendant-appellee.james Brown, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Tommy Hatcher; Charlie Hood,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, 904 F.2d 706 (6th Cir. 1990)

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. § 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.