Coleman v. Bell et al

Filing 4

OPINION AND ORDER finding that because the complaint does not state a claim, it is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 USC 1915A. Signed by Judge Joseph S Van Bokkelen on 3/13/2012. (cc: Coleman)(rmn)

United States District Court
Northern District of Indiana
KEVIN COLEMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
SCOTT BELL and HERALD ARGUS,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 2:12-CV-94 JVB

OPINION AND ORDER
Kevin Coleman, a pro se prisoner, filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review the complaint and dismiss it if the action
is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who
is immune from such relief. Courts apply the same standard under Section 1915A as when
deciding a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463
F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir. 2006).
To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must state a claim for
relief that is plausible on its face. Bissessur v. Ind. Univ. Bd. of Trs., 581 F.3d 599, 602–03 (7th
Cir. 2009). “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.” Id. at 603. Thus, a “plaintiff must do better than putting a few words on paper that, in
the hands of an imaginative reader, might suggest that something has happened to her that might
be redressed by the law.” Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 403 (7th Cir. 2010)
(emphasis in original). The court must bear in mind, however, that “[a] document filed pro se is
to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to

less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.
89, 94 (2007).
Coleman explains that he was erroneously released from the LaPorte County Jail on
January 26, 2012, due to jail employees’ mistake. He states that when he heard of the mistake, he
voluntarily turned himself in. Coleman brings this lawsuit because he alleges that Scott Bell lied
to the newspaper reporter and because the Herald Argus printed that lie. Scott Bell said that
Coleman had assumed the identity of another inmate and escaped by sneaking out of the jail.
Coleman argues that the publication of this lie has damaged his reputation.
For the purpose of this screening order, the court accepts Coleman’s description of these
events. Nevertheless, claims for slander or defamation are not actionable under § 1983. See Paul
v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 712 (1976) (“[W]e hold that the interest in reputation asserted in this
case is neither ‘liberty’ nor ‘property’ guaranteed against state deprivation without due process
of law.”) Therefore Coleman does not state a claim.1
Because the complaint does not state a claim, it is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A.
SO ORDERED on March 13, 2012.

s/Joseph S. Van Bokkelen
Joseph S. Van Bokkelen
United States District Judge
Hammond Division

1
In addition, Mr. Coleman has not shown that Herald Argus is a government entity that would be subject to §
1983 suit in the first place.

2