Lowry v. Stoddard et al, No. 1:2023cv01008 - Document 6 (D.S.D. 2023)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Signed by U.S. District Judge Charles B. Kornmann on 04/20/2023. Sent to Plaintiff via USPS.(MSB)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Lowry v. Stoddard et al Doc. 6 Case 1:23-cv-01008-CBK Document 6 Filed 04/26/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 59 FILET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA APR 2 6 2023 NORTHERN DIVISION TUJUANE LOWRY, 1:23-CV-0I008-CBK Plaintiff, vs., MEMORANDUM OPINION JENNIFER STODDARD,Brown County State Attorney, in official capacity; AND ORDER MICHAEL BUNKE,Aberdeen Police Department Detective, in official capacity; and JORDAN MAJESKE,Aberdeen Police Department Detective, in official capacity. Defendants. Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging defendants committed the federal crimes of perjury, subornation of perjury, and false declaration on June 29, 2022, in connection with sworn testimony before a state court grand jury and subsequent indictments in the South Dakota Fifth Judicial District, County ofBrown. He also claims defendants violated his right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. INITIAL SCREENING Plaintiff paid the filing fee in this action and is not proceeding informa pauperis. Nonetheless, he is currently, and was at the time ofthe filing ofthe complaint, a federal pretrial detainee.' Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court must conduct an initial review of the complaint. I am required to screen prisoner complaints and dismiss any complaint that is "(1)frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or(2)seeks monetary relieffrom a defendant who is immune fi-om such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). I am required to 'Plaintiff, who was in the custody ofthe State of South Dakota as a pretrial detainee, was taken into federal custody pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus adprosequendum on March 14, 2023, in 1:22-cr-10031-CBK,involving a charge offelon in possession of a firearm. Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:23-cv-01008-CBK Document 6 Filed 04/26/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 60 give the plaintiffs pro se eomplaint liberal construction and identify any discemable cognizable claim. Solomon v. Petrav, 795 F.3d 777, 787 (8tb Cir. 2015). I have conducted an initial review as required by § 1915A. In doing so, I take judicial notice of the records of South Dakota's Unified Judicial System, which are available on the eeourts portal. On June 29, 2022, an indictment was returned in 06CRI22-000521 alleging that, on June 18, 2022, plaintiff committed two counts of first-degree burglary, one count of third-degree rape, commission of a felony while armed with a firearm, sexual contact with a person incapable of consenting, and possession of a firearm by a violent or drug related convicted felon. The indictment indicates that Detective Michael Bunke testified before the grand jury in regard to the indictment. The indictment was filed on July 7, 2022. Trial was scheduled in the above ease, after two continuances, for March 29, 2023. Following being taken into federal custody on March 14, 2022, the above state charges were dismissed without prejudice on motion ofthe prosecutor on March 21, 2023. Also on June 29, 2022, an indictment was returned in 06CRI22-000522 alleging that, on June 20, 2022, plaintiff committed aggravated eluding, eluding, and reckless driving. The indictment does not indicate that any defendant in this action testified before the grand jury in regard to the indictment. The indictment was filed on July 6, 2022. The case is still pending but no trial or other hearing is scheduled in the case. Finally, again on June 29, 2022, an indictment was returned in 08CRI22-00572 alleging that, on June 21, 2022, plaintiff committed possession of a controlled substance and possession of a firearm by a violent or drug related convicted felon. The indictment indicates that Detective Jordan Majeske testified before the grand jury in regard to the indictment. The indictment was filed on July 7, 2022. The case is still pending but no trial or other hearing is scheduled in the case. Plaintiff set forth in the statement of claim that, on June 29, 2022, during the grand jury session, defendant Stoddard was present when defendants Bunke and Jordan testified as to charges for which plaintiff was indicted. He references no particular state court case 2 Case 1:23-cv-01008-CBK Document 6 Filed 04/26/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 61 number but the only facts he references in his complaint are his claim that statements were made that "her legs moved minimally,""she was very limp throughout this whole process," and that "it was pretty clear in the video that MA was not conscious during majority of the rape." Clearly, the basis ofthe complaint is plaintiffs claim that defendants were involved in alleged false testimony before the grand jury that returned an indictment for, inter alia, third-degree rape and sexual contact with a person incapable of consenting. I. Official Capacity Claims. Plaintiff sued defendants in official capacities. When a public employee is sued in his or her official capacity, the plaintiff is suing "only the public employer," in this ease. Brown County and the City of Aberdeen. Furlow v. Belmar. 52 F.4th 393,406 (8th Cir. 2022). Local governments, like counties and cities, are liable only for "their own illegal acts" and are not vicariously liable under § 1983. "[A] local government may not be sued under § 1983 for an injury inflicted solely by its employees or agents." Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of Citv of New York. 436 U.S. 658, 694, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 2037, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1978). Accord, Connick v. Thompson. 563 U.S. 51, 60, 131 S. Ct. 1350, 1359, 179 L. Ed. 2d 417(2011). "A county [and a city] may be liable for a constitutional violation under § 1983 only if the violation resulted from a policy or custom ofthe municipality." Calgaro v. St. Louis County, 919 F.3d 1054, 1058 (8th Cir. 2019){citing Monell V. Dep't of Soc. Servs.. supra.). Plaintiff does not allege that any official action or policy on behalf of Brown County or the City of Aberdeen or their policy making officials caused his injuries or damages. His official capacity claims should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. II. Immunity. Even if the Court were to construe the claims against defendant Stoddard as individual capacity claims, the claims fail on the basis of prosecutorial immunity. Plaintiffseeks damages from defendant Stoddard for actions she allegedly committed while presenting evidence before a grand jury. The United States Supreme Court has held that "in initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State's case, the prosecutor is ^ 3 Case 1:23-cv-01008-CBK Document 6 Filed 04/26/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 62 immune from a civil suit for damages under s 1983." Imbler v. Pachtman,424 U.S. 409, 431, 96 S. Ct. 984,995,47 L. Ed. 2d 128(1976) Accord, Stocklev v. Joyce, 963 F.3d 809, 817(8th Cir. 2020)(cleaned up). Plaintiffs claims against defendant Stoddard that she was present during the alleged false testimony before the grand jury concem her role as a prosecutor and are barred by prosecutorial immunity. Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief could be granted against defendant Stoddard. Likewise, if the Court were to construe the claims against the Aberdeen Police Officers as individual capacity claims, the claims also fail on the basis of absolute immunity. Law enforcement witnesses who testify before a grand jury are absolutely immune from liability under § 1983 for claims based on the witness' testimony. Rehberg V. Paulk. 566 U.S. 356, 369, 132 S. Ct. 1497, 1506, 182 L. Ld. 2d 593 (2012), discussing Briscoe v. LaHue. 460 U.S. 325, 103 S.Ct. 1108, 75 L.Ld.2d 96(1983) and Imbler v. Pachtman. supra. ORDER Based upon the foregoing, IT IS ORDLRLD that plaintiffs complaint is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). DATED this^c;^ ^y of April, 2023. BY THE COURT: CHARLES B. KORNMANN United States District Judge
]]>
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.
