PETERSON v. MARVELL et al, No. 1:2011cv01122 - Document 51 (S.D. Ind. 2013)
Court Description: ENTRY - The plaintiff shall have through May 20, 2013, in which to notify the court in writing whether he requests the court's assistance in recruiting counsel to represent him in the further development and potential trial of this action. The court has sua sponte reviewed the Complaint and determined that claims against the defendants in their official capacities must be dismissed. The claims in this action shall proceed against the defendants in their individual capacities only. No partial final judgment shall issue at this time as to the claims resolved in this Entry. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 4/29/2013. Copy Mailed. (JD)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
PETERSON v. MARVELL et al Doc. 51 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION LAWRENCE PETERSON, Plaintiff, vs. LIEUTENANT R. MARVELL sued in his individual and official capacities, under color of state law, OFFICER M. BALLARD sued in his individual and official capacities, under color of state law, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 1:11-cv-01122-TWP-MJD Entry Concerning Selected Matters The court, having considered the above action and the matters which are pending, makes the following rulings: 1. The plaintiff shall have through May 20, 2013, in which to notify the court in writing whether he requests the court’s assistance in recruiting counsel to represent him in the further development and potential trial of this action. 2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the court has sua sponte reviewed the Complaint and determined that claims against the defendants in their official capacities must be dismissed. The reason for this ruling is that an official-capacity claim is effectively a suit against the governmental entity employing the defendant. Scott v. O'Grady, 975 F.2d 366, 369 (7th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 942 (1993). In this case, therefore, an official capacity claim against the defendant individuals as employees of the Indiana Department of Correction would in essence be against the State of Indiana. Such claims are barred by the Eleventh Dockets.Justia.com Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the doctrine of sovereign immunity. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165-67 and n.14 (1985) (suit for damages against state officer in official capacity is barred by the Eleventh Amendment); see also Omosegbon v. Wells, 335 F.3d 668, 673 (7th Cir. 2003) (the state is not a “person” that can be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983). The claims in this action shall proceed against the defendants in their individual capacities only. No partial final judgment shall issue at this time as to the claims resolved in this Entry. IT IS SO ORDERED. 04/29/2013 Date: __________________ Distribution: Lawrence Peterson 892938 PENDLETON - CF PENDLETON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Inmate Mail/Parcels 4490 West Reformatory Road Pendleton, IN 46064 All Electronically Registered Counsel ________________________ Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge United States District Court Southern District of Indiana
]]>
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.
