Martin v. Engelman

Filing 38

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 34 MOTION to Amend 1 Pro Se Complaint by Plaintiff Derrick C Martin. In-Person Scheduling Conference set for 7/25/2011 at 10:00 AM in US District Court - Fort Wayne before Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey on 6/15/11. (cer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHER DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
DERRICK C. MARTIN,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
DARRICK ENGELMAN,
Defendant.

CAUSE NO. 1:10-CV-109

OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Derrick Martin’s motion to amend his complaint
(Docket # 34), seeking leave to add three new plaintiffs; thirty-two new defendants, including
the Fort Wayne Police Department and the City of Fort Wayne; and (by his count) forty-six
different claims almost all of which were previously-dismissed. Defendant opposes Martin’s
motion, and it is now fully briefed. (Docket # 35, 37.) For the following reasons, Martin’s
motion will be DENIED.
A. Factual and Procedural Background
Martin filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se when he was incarcerated, alleging a
host of claims against Defendant Darrick Engelman, a detective in the Fort Wayne Police
Department, including that he violated his Fourth Amendment rights in a search of his home.
(Docket # 1.) On August 10, 2010, the District Judge screened Martin’s complaint pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and dismissed all claims other than the Fourth Amendment claim based on
the alleged illegal search and seizure. (Docket # 8.)
On February 24, 2011, the Court granted Martin’s request for the appointment of counsel

for the limited purpose of affording him the opportunity to discuss his claim with a
knowledgeable and experienced attorney. (Docket # 29.) On March 30, 2011, Martin filed the
instant motion to amend his complaint. (Docket # 34.) On April 22, 2011, Martin’s appointed
counsel were discharged from the case, having fulfilled their limited representation. (Docket #
36.)
B. Standard of Review
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, a party may amend his pleading once as a
matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served; otherwise, he may amend
only by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).
Leave to amend is freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). However, this
right is not absolute, Brunt v. Serv. Employees Int’l Union, 284 F.3d 715, 720 (7th Cir. 2002),
and can be denied for undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, prejudice, or futility. Ind. Funeral
Dirs. Ins. Trust v. Trustmark Ins. Corp., 347 F.3d 652, 655 (7th Cir. 2003).
C. Discussion
As explained earlier, Martin seeks leave to amend his complaint to add three new
plaintiffs and thirty-two new defendants, including the City of Fort Wayne and the Fort Wayne
Police Department; and to resurrect his previously-dismissed claims. For the following reasons,
his motion will be denied.
With respect to his request to add three new plaintiffs, Martin explains that “they also
lived at the residence in question at the time of the [alleged] illegal search and seizure”. (Reply
1.) Martin’s request to add these three plaintiffs, however, is futile, as a pro se plaintiff “cannot
bring [a] lawsuit on behalf of another . . . .” Fleece v. Stzrecki, No. 3:10-CV-445, 2010 WL
2

4628289, at *1 (N.D. Ind. Nov. 5, 2010); see Lewis v. Lenc-Smith Mfg. Co., 784 F.2d 829, 830
(7th Cir. 1986) (“[I]t is clear than an individual may appear in the federal courts only pro se or
through counsel.”).
Likewise, it would be a futility to grant Martin’s request to add the Fort Wayne Police
Department as a defendant. “Municipalities are subject to suit for constitutional violations
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Martin v. Teusch, No. 1:09-CV-321 JVB, 2010 WL 1474525, at
*2 (N.D. Ind. Apr. 9, 2010) (citing Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978)).
“However, a city’s police department is not a suable entity apart from the municipality.” Id.; see
Sow v. Fortville Police Dept., 636 F.3d 293, 300 (7th Cir. 2011) (articulating that Indiana
municipal police departments lack the capacity to be sued); Vela v. Indianapolis Police Dept.,
No. 1:06-cv-1481-SEB-JMS, 2008 WL 191977, at *4 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 22, 2008) (collecting
cases); Culbreath v. Florea, No. 3:06-CV-0749 WL, 2007 WL 433075, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Feb. 5,
2007) (“[U]nder Indiana law, a ‘police department’ has no separate corporate existence and is
therefore not a suable entity.”).
Martin also seeks to name thirty new individual defendants in this case. However, his
proposed amended complaint focuses only on Engelman’s alleged conduct, failing to specify
how these other thirty individuals were personally involved in his alleged constitutional
violation. See Knight v. Wiseman, 590 F.3d 458, 462-63 (7th Cir. 2009) (explaining that to
establish personal liability in a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show a causal connection between
the acts complained of and the alleged constitution deprivation—that is, that the government
official had some “personal involvement” in the violation).
Moreover, Martin’s proposed complaint attempts to resurrect a plethora of claims that
3

were previously dismissed by the District Judge. (See Docket # 8.) For example, Martin
advances a defamation claim in his proposed amended complaint, but that claim was already
dismissed by the District Judge because “defamation is not actionable under § 1983.” (Op. and
Order, Aug. 8, 2010, at 4 (citing Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 712 (1976)).)
In sum, because of the futility of Martin’s requested amendments, his motion for leave to
file the proposed amended complaint will be DENIED.
D. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint (Docket # 34) is
DENIED. The Court sets this matter for an in-person scheduling conference on July 25, 2011, at
10:00 a.m.
SO ORDERED.
Enter for June 15, 2011.
S/Roger B. Cosbey
Roger B. Cosbey
United States Magistrate Judge

4