Henderson v. St Joseph County Jail et al, No. 3:2013cv00346 - Document 7 (N.D. Ind. 2013)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE because it is untimely. Signed by Judge Theresa L Springmann on 6/18/13. (smp)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA MARCUS E. HENDERSON, Plaintiff, v. ST. JOSEPH COUNTY JAIL, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CAUSE NO.: 3:13-CV-346 TLS OPINION AND ORDER On April 19, 2013, the Plaintiff, Marcus E. Henderson, a pro se prisoner, filed a Complaint [ECF No. 1] pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that on or about September 20, 2010, while he was being held in the St. Joseph County Jail, money in his account at the jail was disbursed in violation of a State court order. He also alleges that he was unable to bond out on November 20, 2010, because he was required to post more money than the State court had ordered. This is not the first time that the Plaintiff has asserted these claims. In Henderson v. Lawson, 3:12-CV-536 (N.D. Ind. filed September 20, 2012), he raised these same issues. In that case, he stated that the violations continued up to and include Jan. of 2011. Id. at [ECF No. 1-1 at 1]. Because that complaint was otherwise vague, it was stricken with leave to refile. The Plaintiff was sent a form so that he could file an amended complaint, but he did not return it. That case was dismissed without prejudice on October 22, 2012. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court must review this prisoner complaint. Indiana s two-year statute of limitations . . . is applicable to all causes of action brought in Indiana under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Snodderly v. R.U.F.F. Drug Enforcement Task Force, 239 F.3d 892, 894 (7th Cir. 2001). Here, all of the Plaintiff s claims arose by January 2011. Thus, the latest he could file these claims was January 2013. Henderson s complaint in 3:12-CV-536 was timely as would have been his amended complaint if he had filed one. But this Complaint is untimely. This Complaint was not signed until April 19, 2013, months after the statute of limitation had expired. Although the statute of limitation is an affirmative defense, dismissal is appropriate where it is clear that the claim is time barred. Cancer Found., Inc. v. Cerberus Capital Mgmt., LP, 559 F.3d 671, 674 (7th Cir. 2009). For the foregoing reasons, this case is DISMISSED because it is untimely. SO ORDERED on June 18, 2013 s/Theresa L. Springmann THERESA L. SPRINGMANN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORT WAYNE DIVISION 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.