SWEENEY v. SWEENEY, No. 2:2020cv00289 - Document 11 (S.D. Ind. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT - For the reasons explained above, the amended complaint is DISMISSED. Because the plaintiff has previously been given an opportunity to amend his complaint, this action is DISMISSED. The plaintiff's motion for trial by jury, dkt. 8 , is DENIED AS MOOT. Final Judgment in accordance with this Order shall now issue. SEE ORDER. Signed by Judge James Patrick Hanlon on 10/7/2020. (JRB)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
SWEENEY v. SWEENEY Doc. 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA TERRE HAUTE DIVISION CHARLES EDWARD SWEENEY, JR., ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. KATHLEEN M. SWEENEY, Defendant. No. 2:20-cv-00289-JPH-DLP ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT On September 2, 2020, the Court issued an Order dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff was given an opportunity to file an amended complaint to avoid dismissal of the action. On September 16, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. For the reasons explained below, the amended complaint is DISMISSED. I. SCREENING STANDARD Because the plaintiff is a "prisoner" as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(c), this Court has an obligation under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) to screen the amended complaint before service on the defendants. The Court must dismiss the amended complaint, or any portion of the amended complaint, if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. In determining whether the amended complaint states a claim, the Court applies the same standard as when addressing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). To survive dismissal, 1 Dockets.Justia.com [the amended] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Cesal v. Moats, 851 F.3d 714, 720 (7th Cir. 2017). Pro se complaints such as that filed by the plaintiff are construed liberally and held to "a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by lawyers." Cesal, 851 F.3d at 720. II. BACKGROUND On June 5, 2020, the plaintiff filed a complaint naming Assistant United States Attorney Kathleen Sweeney ("AUSA Sweeney") as the sole defendant. Dkt. 2. The complaint stated that in 1992, the plaintiff was arrested by agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms for allegedly placing a pipe bomb under a Clark County detective's unmarked vehicle. Id. AUSA Sweeney allegedly allowed a Clark County deputy sheriff to eavesdrop on a debriefing in which the plaintiff was cooperating with federal officials. Id. AUSA Sweeney later represented the Government at a hearing where the plaintiff pleaded guilty to several charges related to his arrest. Id. In 2019, the Government conceded that the plaintiff was actually innocent of these charges and vacated his conviction. Id. On September 2, 2020, the Court dismissed the complaint. Dkt. 9. Id. The plaintiff's claim that AUSA Sweeney violated his rights by representing the Government at his guilty plea hearing was dismissed because prosecutors have absolute immunity for activities that are intimately associated with the judicial process. Id. at 2-3. The plaintiff's eavesdropping claim was dismissed because it was barred by the statute of limitations. Id. at 3. The plaintiff was given an opportunity to amend the complaint to avoid dismissal of the action. Id. at 3-4. 2 On September 16, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Dkt. 10. The plaintiff argued that pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 513 U.S. 477 (1994) and its progeny, the statute of limitations did not begin to run until the plaintiff's conviction was vacated in 2019. Dkt. 10, pp. 23. The facts in support of the eavesdropping claim are not materially different than those asserted in the original complaint. The amended complaint makes no argument opposing AUSA Sweeney's absolute immunity for representing the Government at the plaintiff's guilty plea hearing. Thus, it appears that the plaintiff has abandoned that claim. III. DISCUSSION In Heck, the Supreme Court held that a state prisoner may not bring a claim for damages under § 1983 if judgment in the prisoner's favor "would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence." 513 U.S. at 486-87. The Heck doctrine has been applied to Bivens claims against federal officers. Hill v. Murphy, 785 F.3d 242, 244 (7th Cir. 2015). Where a plaintiff's conviction has been vacated, the statute of limitations on claims that were previously barred by Heck begins to run upon the date that the conviction was vacated. Savory v. Cannon, 947 F.3d 409, 428-29 (7th Cir. 2020) (en banc). The plaintiff's eavesdropping claim does not imply the invalidity of his federal conviction or sentence. Therefore, the eavesdropping claim was not barred by Heck, and the fact that the plaintiff's federal conviction has been vacated has no effect on the statute of limitations regarding this claim. For the reasons explained in the Order dismissing the original complaint, dkt. 9, pp. 3-4 the eavesdropping claim is barred by the statute of limitations, and the amended complaint must be DISMISSED. 3 IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons explained above, the amended complaint is DISMISSED. Because the plaintiff has previously been given an opportunity to amend his complaint, this action is DISMISSED. The plaintiff's motion for trial by jury, dkt. [8], is DENIED AS MOOT. Final Judgment in accordance with this Order shall now issue. SO ORDERED. Date: 10/7/2020 Distribution: CHARLES EDWARD SWEENEY, JR. 957595 WABASH VALLEY - CF WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Inmate Mail/Parcels Electronic Service Participant – Court Only 4
]]>
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.
