Unpublished Dispositioncharles E. Reneer, Jr., Plaintiff-appellant, v. James E. Mcdaniel, Judge, Daviess Circuit Court, Division I,defendant-appellee, 907 F.2d 151 (6th Cir. 1990)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit - 907 F.2d 151 (6th Cir. 1990) June 27, 1990

Before MERRITT, Chief Judge, and KEITH and NATHANIEL R. JONES, Circuit Judges.


ORDER

Charles E. Reneer, a Kentucky prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the order of the district court dismissing with prejudice his complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination of the record and the brief, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).

Seeking monetary damages, Reneer alleged that Daviess County, Kentucky, Circuit Judge James E. McDaniel violated his civil rights by several rulings made by the judge during Reneer's criminal trial. The district court dismissed the case sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).

Upon review, we conclude that the complaint was properly dismissed because it is frivolous within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). A complaint is frivolous "where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 1831 (1989). Reneer's claim is frivolous because, under the circumstances set out in the complaint, defendant is entitled to absolute immunity. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 362-63 (1978); Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-54 (1967).

Accordingly, the order of the district court is hereby affirmed for the reasons set forth in the court's memorandum dated November 8, 1989, pursuant to Rule 9(b) (5), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.