Melvin v. Hurley, No. 3:2017cv00540 - Document 4 (N.D. Ind. 2017)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER This case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because the complaint seeks money damages against a defendant who is immune from such relief. Signed by Judge Jon E DeGuilio on 7/14/17. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(kjp)

Download PDF
Melvin v. Hurley Doc. 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION NELSON MELVIN, Plaintiff, v. ELIZABETH C. HURLEY, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Cause No. 3:17-CV-540 JD OPINION AND ORDER Nelson Melvin, a pro se prisoner, is attempting to sue a St. Joseph County Superior Court Judge for money damages based on judicial rulings during his State criminal proceedings. “A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Nevertheless, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review the merits of a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. Here, Melvin alleges that the Judge Elizabeth C. Hurley improperly scheduled and continued his trial, which violated his right to a speedy trial. However, a judge is entitled to absolute immunity for judicial acts regarding matters within the court’s jurisdiction, even if the judge’s “exercise of authority is flawed by the commission of grave procedural errors.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 359 (1978). Melvin alleges that the judge acted improperly, but 1 Dockets.Justia.com because her actions were within the jurisdiction of a State criminal court, she has judicial immunity. Though it is usually necessary to permit a plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended complaint when a case is dismissed sua sponte, see Luevano v. Wal-Mart, 722 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir. 2013), that is unnecessary where the amendment would be futile. Hukic v. Aurora Loan Servs., 588 F.3d 420, 432 (7th Cir. 2009) (“[C]ourts have broad discretion to deny leave to amend where . . . the amendment would be futile.”) Such is the case here. For these reasons, this case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because the complaint seeks money damages against a defendant who is immune from such relief. SO ORDERED. ENTERED: July 14, 2017 /s/ JON E. DEGUILIO Judge United States District Court 2

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.