Ingraham v. University of Maine at Orono
| Decision Date | 23 February 1982 |
| Citation | 441 A.2d 691 |
| Parties | Robert Christopher INGRAHAM v. UNIVERSITY OF MAINE AT ORONO, Paul Silverman, President, and David Cox, Penobscot County District Attorney. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Robert Christopher Ingraham, pro se.
John M. R. Paterson (orally), Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer & Nelson, Portland, for University of Maine at Orono.
Gary F. Thorne, Mitchell & Stearns, Bangor, for David Cox, Dist. Atty.
Before McKUSICK, C. J., and ROBERTS, CARTER, VIOLETTE and WATHEN, JJ.
Plaintiff Robert Christopher Ingraham, takes this appeal from an order of the Superior Court, Penobscot County dismissing his complaint against the defendant, David Cox. 1 Defendant Cox's motion to dismiss was predicated primarily on the plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).
We note at the outset that we have no jurisdiction over the dismissal of the complaint against University of Maine at Orono and Silverman because the only notice of appeal filed in this case was filed after the dismissal of the complaint as to Cox and before the complaint against University of Maine at Orono and Silverman was actually dismissed. M.R.Civ.P. 73 requires that an appeal be taken from a judgment of the Superior Court. Because the case against University of Maine at Orono and Silverman had not been dismissed, there was no judgment from which to appeal. Moreover, no notice of appeal was ever filed after the dismissal as to University of Maine at Orono and Silverman and judgment on that dismissal was docketed in the Superior Court.
Plaintiff also seeks from this Court injunctive relief to prevent certain individuals from harassing him. 2 We affirm the judgment of dismissal and deny the injunctive relief.
A careful reading of the complaint indicates that it fails to state a cause of action against defendant Cox and was therefore properly dismissed. The complaint alleges only that Cox's part in the 'UMO conspiracy' to harass the plaintiff was the prosecution of numerous criminal trespassing charges. The record before us establishes that the criminal trespass charges apparently arose initially after the plaintiff ignored a June 1980 order by the Acting President of University of Maine at Orono, excluding the plaintiff from the Orono campus of the University of Maine. The plaintiff does not allege in his complaint that defendant Cox took any action outside the course of the normal prosecution of criminal charges. A district attorney, as a prosecuting officer of the State, enjoys absolute immunity from suit, including suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, when acting within the scope of his official duty. See, e.g., Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 422-424, 96 S.Ct. 984, 991-992, 47 L.Ed.2d 128, 138-40 (1976). The complaint against Cox was properly dismissed.
The plaintiff seeks the following injunctive relief from this Court:
(1) reversal and recission of his convictions for criminal trespass (2) reinstatement of the plaintiff as a student at University of Maine at Orono and requiring University of Maine at Orono to give plaintiff a job,
(3) issuance of a preliminary and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from denying admission, employment and due process, and other conduct intended to harass the plaintiff.
Before granting a preliminary or permanent injunction, the Court must find that four criteria are met:
(4) that the public interest will not be adversely affected...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bangor Baptist Church v. State of Me., Dept. of Educ.
...v. Kennebunkport Board of Zoning Appeals, 363 A.2d 1372, 1377 n. 9 (Me.1976), and by the public interest, see Ingraham v. University of Maine at Orono, 441 A.2d 691, 693 (Me.1982);39 Note, Developments in the Law — Injunctions, 78 Harv.L.Rev. 994, 1001 (1965). The Law Court "has always been......
-
Knapper v. Connick
...Whirty v. Lynch, 27 Mass.App.Ct. 498, 539 N.E.2d 1064 (1989), rev. denied, 405 Mass. 1204, 543 N.E.2d 21 (1989); Ingraham v. University of Maine at Orono, 441 A.2d 691 (Me.1982); Davis v. Eddie, 130 Mich.App. 284, 343 N.W.2d 11 (1983); Brown v. Dayton Hudson Corp., 314 N.W.2d 210 (Minn.1981......
-
Olfene v. The Board of Trustees
... ... REED, Plaintiffs v. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, MAINE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, and GAIL DRAKE WRIGHT Defendants ... injunction. Id.; Ingraham v. Univ. of Maine, 441 ... A.2d 691, 693 (Me. 1982). Failure to ... ...
-
Old Town Util. & Tech. Park, LLC v. MFGR, LLC
...a substantial possibility), (4) that the public interest will not be adversely affected by granting the injunction.Ingraham v. Univ. of Me., 441 A.2d 691, 693 (Me. 1982). These criteria "are not to be applied woodenly or in isolation from each other; rather, the court of equity should weigh......