Martin v. Ross et al, No. 1:2008cv00247 - Document 3 (N.D. Ind. 2008)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Anthony C Martin and DISMISSES this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 10/30/08. (jcp)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION ANTHONY C. MARTIN, Plaintiff, vs. ROBERT ROSS, Judge, Allen Superior Court, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NO. 1:08-CV-247 OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the court on the plaintiff s complaint and his petition to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons set forth below, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2), the court DENIES the plaintiff s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and DISMISSES this case. BACKGROUND Martin alleges in his complaint that on October 20, 2008, he appeared before Allen Superior Court Judge Robert Ross who was presiding over a criminal prosecution against him.1 Defendant Robert Gevers is the Deputy Prosecutor who presented the State s case. Martin seeks damages from the defendants in the amount of $20,000.00 and wants the court to expunge his traffic record. 1 Martin brought similar claims against Judge Ross in Martin v. Ross, et al, 1:08cv199 TS concerning an appearance in front of Judge Ross earlier this year. DISCUSSION Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, indigent litigants may proceed without prepayment of fees, which prevents poverty from becoming an impediment to the adjudication of legitimate claims in the federal courts. To prevent abusive, captious or meitless litigation, however, federal courts are authorized to dismiss a claim filed in forma pauperis if the allegation of poverty is untrue or if the action or appeal is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary damages from an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2). Matin alleges that Judge Ross showed unprofessional bias and vindictive demeanor against him, and forced [him] to a criminal trial set in front of Mr. Ross in violation of several provisions of the Indiana Rules of Court. (Complaint at p. 2). Martin alleges that when he complained that Judge Ross was violating trial rules the plaintiff was told to shut up & was slurred. (Complaint at p. 2). Martin asserts that in addition to violating Indiana Rules of Court, Judge Ross and Mr. Givers also violated rights protected by the Indiana Constitution, and several amendments to the United States Constitution. The plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Section 1983, which provides a cause of action to redress the violation of federally secured rights by a person acting under color of state law. Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F.2d 1205 (7th Cir. 1984). To 2 state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege violation of rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that a person acting under color of state law committed the alleged deprivation. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988). Martin s allegations that the defendants violated provisions of the Indiana Constitution and Trial Rules states no claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to § 1983. Judge Ross is entitled to absolute judicial immunity against Martin s federal damage claims if his actions meet a two-part test: first, the acts must be within the judge s jurisdiction; second, these acts must be performed in the judge s judicial capacity. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978) (Judges are not liable in civil actions for their judicial acts unless they have acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction). A judge is absolutely immune for his judicial acts even if his exercise of authority is flawed by the commission of grave procedural errors. Id. at 359; Dellenbach v. Letsinger, 889 F.2d 755, 759 (7th Cir. 1989), cert. denied , 494 U.S. 1085 (1990). Judge Ross had the jurisdiction to preside over Martin s criminal case. See John v. Barron, 897 F.2d 1387, 1392 (7th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 821 (1990) (test is whether the acts are those normally performed by a judge). Accordingly, Judge Ross is entitled to judicial immunity against Martin s damage claims. 3 Martin also asks the court to expunge his traffic court record. But the abstention doctrine set forth in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 53 (1971), requires a federal district court to refrain from interfering with state criminal proceedings in deference to principles of equity, comity, and federalism. Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415 (1979). If Martin wishes to have a court review a decision made by Judge Ross in a state criminal case, he needs to appeal Judge Ross s decision to the Indiana Court of Appeals. Martin alleges that Deputy Prosecutor Robert Gevers ( Gevers ) allowed an unprofessional [police] officer [to] testify, knowing that it wasn t the complete truth and entered into a court of law altered and untrue statements. (Complaint at p. 3). Prosecutors have absolute immunity for the initiation and pursuit of a criminal prosecution, including presenting the state s case at trial or any other conduct intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976). In initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State s case, the prosecutor is immune from a civil suit for damages under § 1983. Id. at 431. This immunity applies even where the prosecutor acts maliciously, unreasonably, without probable cause, or even on the basis of false testimony or evidence. Henry v. Farmer City State Bank, 808 F.2d 1228, 1238 (7th Cir. 1986). The conduct Martin complains of constitutes conduct intimately associated with the 4 judicial phase of the criminal process. Accordingly, Gevers is entitled to prosecutorial immunity. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES the plaintiff s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (DE #2) and DISMISSES this cause of action. DATED: October 30, 2008 /S/RUDY LOZANO, Judge United States District Court 5
]]>
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.
