Unpublished Dispositionjames Douglas Brown, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Dan Neubert, Jr.; Alvina Small, Defendants-appellees.james Douglas Brown, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Kelly Thomas, Jr., Defendant-appellee.james Douglas Brown, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Edward Bailey, Defendant-appellee.james Douglas Brown, Plaintiff-appellant, v. William B. Marsh, Defendant-appellee, 908 F.2d 972 (6th Cir. 1990)

Before KRUPANSKY and BOGGS, Circuit Judges; and CHARLES W. JOINER, Senior District Judge.^* 

ORDER

This pro se Tennessee prisoner appeals four district court orders dismissing four civil rights complaints filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He requests the appointment of counsel. These consolidated 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).

In each complaint, James Douglas Brown alleged a violation of his fourth amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. He essentially complained that defendants' conduct resulted in an unjust state conviction supported by evidence seized during an allegedly improper search. Brown sought monetary and injunctive relief.

Upon review, we conclude that the complaints were properly dismissed as frivolous within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). See Neitzke v. Williams, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 1831 (1989).

In case No. 90-5258, Brown's claims lack an arguable basis in law because defendant Small is entitled to immunity for her allegedly perjured testimony. See Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 326 (1983). Similarly, both defendants are entitled to immunity for their role as witnesses to the consent to search. See 460 U.S. at 335-36.

In case No. 90-5259, the claims are frivolous because defendant attorney is not a "state actor" for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981).

The defendant in case No. 90-5260 is entitled to immunity from suit for damages arising from his performance of prosecutorial duties. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 427 (1976). The remaining claims are frivolous because they assert the infringement of nonexistent legal interests. See Neitzke, 109 S. Ct. at 1833.

The defendant in case No. 90-5261 is entitled to absolute immunity from suit for damages based on his conduct while presiding over a preliminary criminal proceeding. See King v. Love, 766 F.2d 962, 965 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 971 (1985). Brown's claims for injunctive relief are simply not warranted.

Accordingly, the request for appointed counsel is denied and the district court's orders are hereby affirmed. Rule 9(b) (5), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.