Tyler v. Porter County Superior Court
Filing
3
OPINION AND ORDER re 1 Pro Se Complaint, this case is DISMISSEDpursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 7/10/2014. (cc: Tyler)(rmn)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
WILLIAM R. TYLER,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
PORTER COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, )
)
Defendant.
)
CAUSE NO. 2:14-CV-225
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the complaint filed by
William R. Tyler, a pro se prisoner, on June 26, 2014. Tyler
alleges that the Porter County Superior Court denied him the
effective
assistance
of
counsel
during
his
State
criminal
proceedings. “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) (quotation marks and
citations omitted). Nevertheless, the Court must review prisoner
complaints pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Tyler is asking for either $116,800,000 or to have the
criminal charges against him vacated, to be released and to receive
$11,680,000. However,“habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for a
state
prisoner
who
challenges
the
fact
or
duration
of
his
confinement and seeks immediate or speedier release . . . .” Heck
v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 481 (1994). Moreover, the Porter
Superior Court is not a suable entity. Cf. Sow v. Fortville Police
Dep’t, 636 F.3d 293, 300 (7th Cir. 2011) (Indiana Code 36-1-2-10
lists suable entities and State trial courts are not listed.)
Though it is usually necessary to permit a plaintiff the
opportunity to file an amended complaint when a case is dismissed
sua sponte, see Luevano v. Wal-Mart, 722 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir. 2013),
that is unnecessary where the amendment would be futile. Hukic v.
Aurora Loan Servs., 588 F.3d 420, 432 (7th Cir. 2009) (“[C]ourts
have broad discretion to deny leave to amend where . . . the
amendment would be futile.”) Such is the case here because no
amendment could cure the fact that Tyler cannot obtain any relief
in a lawsuit against the Porter County Superior Court. Nor can he
obtain any relief if he were to attempt to substitute the State
court judge, because the judge has absolute judicial immunity for
his decisions related to the appointment of counsel. See Stump v.
Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 359 (1978).
For the reasons set forth above, this case is DISMISSED
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
DATED: July 10, 2014
/s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United State District Court
-2-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?