United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
C. HAMILTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is the motion of pro se plaintiff Michael Goodwin
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, as well as his
amended complaint “42 U.S.C. § 1983-Civil Action
for Deprivation of Rights.” After reviewing the
financial information provided, the Court finds that Goodwin
is unable to pay the filing fee. Therefore he will be granted
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons discussed
below, Goodwin's amended complaint will be dismissed
without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
amended complaint, styled as a § 1983 civil rights
action, is at least the fourth iteration of his claim
asserting that the Court should overturn his allegedly
unconstitutional conviction of 2001.
2008, plaintiff moved the Court to reduce his sentence
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment
706 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines
(“U.S.S.G.”), which lowered the base offense
level for offenses involving cocaine base. The Court denied
the motion after finding that Goodwin's sentence was
based on cocaine, not cocaine base. The judgment of the Court
was summarily affirmed on appeal. United States v.
Goodwin, No. 11-1080 (8th Cir. Feb. 23, 2011).
January 4, 2016, Goodwin filed a petition for writ of error
coram nobis, seeking to have his federal judgment vacated. He
argued that his criminal judgment should be vacated because
the indictment was defective and because his plea agreement
was ambiguous. See Goodwin v. United States,
4:16-CV-0007 SNLJ (E.D. Mo.). The Court denied his petition
for writ of error coram nobis on the merits on January 28,
2016. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals summarily affirmed
the denial of the petition on March 8, 2016. See Goodwin
v. United States, No. 16-1368 (8th Cir.
January 2, 2018, plaintiff filed a petition “for the
Court to take judicial notice of adjudicated facts.”
Goodwin v. United States, No. 4:18-CV-11 CDP (E.D.
Mo. Jan. 2, 2018). The Court found that Goodwin's
arguments were nothing but a reiteration of his prior
arguments before both this Court and the Eighth Circuit.
“These assertions have been denied in petitioner's
motion for reduction of sentence based on Amendment 706, as
well as his prior petition for writ of error coram nobis, and
the appeals of both of those motions.”
Goodwin has filed the instant “Civil Action for
Deprivation of Rights” against defendants Judge
Catherine D. Perry, United States Probation Officer John
Ross, and Assistant United States Attorney Antoinette Decker.
asserts that the Court should reconsider its decisions
denying his petition for writ of error coram nobis. He states
once again that the indictment was defective because the
conspiracy count derived from all other dismissed counts,
specifically the dismissed Count VII, which he argues should
not have been changed from crack cocaine to powder cocaine in
the plea agreement. Plaintiff's arguments are nothing but
another reiteration of his prior arguments before this Court
and the Eighth Circuit. These assertions have been denied
amended complaint makes no allegations against Judge Perry,
although she is named as a defendant in the caption of the
case. To the extent plaintiff can be understood to bring a
civil lawsuit against Judge Perry, the complaint is frivolous
and subject to dismissal. Judges are “entitled to
absolute immunity for all judicial actions that are not
‘taken in complete absence of all
jurisdiction.'” Penn v. United States, 335
F.3d 786, 789 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting Mireles v.
Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991)).
plaintiff's complaint is legally frivolous as to
defendants Assistant United States Attorney Antoinette Decker
and Federal Probation Officer John Ross because they too are
entitled to immunity. See, e.g., Brodnicki v.
City of Omaha, 75 F.3d 1261, 1266 (8th Cir. 1996)
(prosecuting attorneys) and Ray v. Pickett, 734 F.2d
370, 374-75 (8th Cir. 1984) (probation officers).
For these reasons, this case will be dismissed pursuant to 28