Knight v. Foreman et al, No. 1:2015cv00302 - Document 11 (N.D. Ind. 2015)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: This case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Signed by Judge Joseph S Van Bokkelen on 12/16/2015. (lhc)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Knight v. Foreman et al Doc. 11 United States District Court Northern District of Indiana MAURICE KNIGHT, SR., Plaintiff, v. DEANNA FOREMAN, et al. Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 1:15-CV-302 JVB OPINION AND ORDER Maurice Knight, Sr., a pro se prisoner, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for money damages against Deanna Foreman, a witness who initially accused Knight of theft, but later recanted her accusation, and Bill Heck, the Grant County Prosecutor, who charged Knight with a crime even though Foreman recanted her accusation. (DE 2.) “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, the claim for money damages against Bill Heck, the Grant County Prosecutor must be dismissed because he has immunity. “[I]n initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State’s case, the prosecutor is immune from a civil suit for damages under § 1983.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976). “[A]bsolute immunity shields prosecutors even if they act maliciously, unreasonably, without probable cause, or even on the basis of false testimony or Dockets.Justia.com evidence.” Smith v. Power, 346 F.3d 740, 742 (7th Cir. 2003) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Charging Knight with a crime, even if based on Foreman’s recanted testimony, is a part of initiating a prosecution. Therefore, the prosecutor is immune from suit. Knight’s claim against Deanna Foreman fares no better. “In order to state a claim under § 1983 a plaintiff must allege: (1) that defendants deprived him of a federal constitutional right; and (2) that the defendants acted under color of state law.” Savory v. Lyons, 469 F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir. 2006). A private individual such as Foreman is not a state actor that can be sued for constitutional violations. See Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1004 (1982); Savory v. Lyons, 469 F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir. 2006). The fact that Foreman reported a crime to the police does not change that fact, even if that report was false. Brokaw v. Mercer County, 235 F.3d 1000, 1016 (7th Cir. 2000) (citing Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149 (1978). Accordingly, Foreman must be dismissed from this case. 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. No amendment could overcome the immunity of Prosecutor Bill Heck or the fact that Deanna Foreman is not a state actor. For these reasons, this case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. SO ORDERED on December 16, 2015. s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen Joseph S. Van Bokkelen United States District Judge Hammond Division
]]>
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.
