Pramuk v. Purdue Calumet University, No. 2:2012cv00077 - Document 3 (N.D. Ind. 2012)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER taking under advisement 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; Plaintiff is given until 5/7/2012 to filean amended complaint. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 4/6/12. cc: Pramuk w/blank pro se complaint form (mc)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION SUSAN PRAMUK, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, vs. PURDUE CALUMET UNIVERSITY, Defendant. CAUSE NO. 2:12-CV-77 OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Susan Pramuk s complaint and her petition to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons set forth below, the court takes the Plaintiff s motion to proceed in forma pauperis under advisement and affords the Plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff Susan Pramuk has filed the Complaint in this action under 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983, alleging that Purdue Calumet University violated her federally protected rights. (DE 1). Pramuk s Section 1983 claim against Purdue Calumet University, however, is barred by the Eleventh Amendment, which provides: The Judicial Power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State. The Eleventh Amendment bars a suit by a citizen against the citizen s own State in Federal Court. Stewart, 57 F.3d 1544, 1552 (10th Cir. 1995). The Johns v. Eleventh Amendment s jurisdictional bar extends to state agencies, including state universities, as well as to the State itself. Kashani v. Purdue University, 813 F.2d. 843 (7th Cir. 1987). A State may elect to waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity, but Indiana has not done so. Meadows v. State of Indiana, 854 F.2d 1068, 1069 (7th Cir. 1988). But Pramuk may proceed against this defendant on an age discrimination claim or under the Americans with Disabilities Act, both of which she cites in the body of her complaint. (DE 1 at 2). Accordingly, the Court will permit the Plaintiff to file an amended complaint on the proper form. For the foregoing reasons, the Court: (1) TAKES the Plaintiff s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs (DE 2) UNDER ADVISEMENT; (2) AFFORDS Plaintiff until May 7, 2012, within which to file an amended complaint; (3) DIRECTS the Clerk to place this cause number on a blank form complaint for presenting an age discrimination claim and/or a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and to enclose said form complaint with the copy of this order sent to Plaintiff; and 2 (4) CAUTIONS Plaintiff that the failure to file an amended complaint may result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further notice. DATED: April 6, 2012 /S/RUDY LOZANO, Judge United States District Court 3
]]>
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.
