- (GantDaily Graphic)
CLEARFIELD – The United States Federal Court, Western Pennsylvania District, has dismissed the civil complaint against Clearfield County District Attorney William A. Shaw, Jr. that was filed by former Fifth Congressional District Candidate Derek Walker.
According to the memorandum order filed on Friday by the Honorable Judge Kim R. Gibson, Walker filed a complaint against Shaw on March 16, 2009. In a memorandum order dated July 10, 2009, the court granted Shaw’s motion to dismiss the complaint.
Gibson said the court decided the ex-candidate’s claims for monetary damages were prohibited by prosecutorial immunity. His claim for equitable relief was “insufficiently pleaded.” However, he was granted leave to file an amended complaint regarding the claim.
Gibson said Walker, subsequently, filed his first amended civil complaint. He said it came before the court following Shaw’s motion to dismiss the same. He indicated that Walker filed an answer to the motion. Gibson granted Shaw’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
Gibson said Walker’s first amended complaint alleges “the same theories” that was advanced in the initial complaint. But his order now argues that Shaw “coerced” witnesses to testify against him. Gibson said Walker’s reframed argument “again fails to sufficiently” set forth a cause of action, which can survive a motion to dismiss.
Gibson continued, stating Walker’s claim for equitable relief survives the application of prosecutorial immunity. However, despite being granted leave to amend his complaint, he said Walker fails to allege “any plausible claims” for equable relief.
In his order, Gibson said that the ex-candidate alleges Shaw violated his First Amendment rights by interviewing and “coercing” witnesses during an investigation process, which resulted in a criminal prosecution against Walker. He said Walker didn’t provide “sufficient facts” that his rights were infringed.
“No candidate possesses the right to run for office free of criminal charges. (Walker) pleaded guilty to the crime with which he was charged as a result of the investigation. (Walker) ran in the primary election, and lost,” Gibson said.
“Insufficient support among voters in his district provides no grounds for equitable redress in this court. The court is unclear how his First Amendment rights could have been possibly violated. This claim lacks a sufficient factual foundation, is unsubstantiated and makes little sense.”
Gibson said the court also disregarded Walker’s conclusory statements in the amended complaint, as they were not “above speculative level.” He further said, “conclusory or bare-bones” complaints will not survive a motion to dismiss. He said that Walker’s claim in the amended complaint “lacks plausibility, and will be dismissed in its entirety.”