Reed v. Missouri et al - Document 4

Reed v. Missouri et al Doc. 4 Case 8:05-cv-01048-PJM Document 4 Filed 04/28/2005 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND ROBERT ANDREW REED, #233-999, Plaintiff v. * HONORABLE WILLIAM D. MISSOURI, et al., Defendants * ****** MEMORANDUM Plaintiff brings this pro se action against William D. Missouri, Michael P. Whalen and James J. Lombardi, judges of the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland. He asserts jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Mr. Reed complains that the named judges have failed to rule on various motions he has filed in state court concerning his state criminal conviction. Paper No. 1. Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, which shall be granted. Upon review of his Complaint, however, the Court concludes that it shall be dismissed under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see also Denton v . Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992); Cochran v. Morris, 73 F.3d 1310, 1315 (4th Cir. 1996); Nasim v. Warden, 64 F.3d 951, 955 (4th Cir. 1995). The defense of absolute immunity extends to "officials whose special functions or constitutional status requires complete protection from suit." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 807 (1982). Judges, whether presiding at the state or federal level, are clearly among those officials who are entitled to such immunity. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978). Because it is a benefit to the public at large, "whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty to exercise their functions with independence and * * CIVIL ACTION NO. PJM-05-1048 Dockets.Justia.com  Case 8:05-cv-01048-PJM Document 4 Filed 04/28/2005 Page 2 of 3 without fear of consequences," Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554 (1967), absolute immunity is necessary so that judges can perform their functions without harassment or intimidation. "Although unfairness and injustice to a litigant may result on occasion,