Robinson v. Indiana State of et al
Filing
6
OPINION AND ORDER re 3 Amended Complaint, the court DISMISSES this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Senior Judge James T Moody on 9/23/14. (eml)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
DAVID LEE ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
MABLE CRISLER, et al.
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 2:14 CV 271
OPINION AND ORDER
David Lee Robinson, a pro se prisoner, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
(DE # 3.) 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 upon which relief may be
granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. The
court applies the same standard as when deciding a motion to dismiss under FEDERAL RULE
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(b)(6).
Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir. 2006). To
survive dismissal, a complaint must state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.
Bissessur v. Indiana 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. The
court must bear in mind 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) (quotation
marks and citations omitted).
Robinson brings suit against his former landlords, Mable Crisler and her son, Butch
Crisler. Robinson alleges that the Crislers rented him a basement apartment and the
Crislers have now stolen his personal belongings. “In order to state a claim under § 1983
a plaintiff must allege: (1) that defendants deprived him of a federal constitutional right;
and (2) that the defendants acted under color of state law.” Savory v. Lyons, 469 F.3d 667,
670 (7th Cir. 2006). Here, Robinson’s section 1983 claim is without merit because the
defendants are not state actors that can be sued for constitutional violations. See Blum v.
Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1004 (1982); Savory v. Lyons, 469 F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, this claim must be dismissed.
For these reasons, the court DISMISSES this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
SO ORDERED.
Date: September 23, 2014
s/James T. Moody
JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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?