Evans v. Vazanellis et al
Filing
5
OPINION AND ORDER: This case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Signed by Judge Joseph S Van Bokkelen on 11/14/2016. (lhc)(cc: Plaintiff)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
WALTER BLAINE EVANS,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 2:16-CV-447 JVB
SAMUEL VAZANELLIS,
DAVID OLSON, and
BENARD CARTER,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Walter Blaine Evans, a pro se prisoner, filed a complaint alleging that he is being denied
a speedy trial. “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). Nevertheless, 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. “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).
Evans is suing his former Public Defender, Samuel Vazanellis, because he refused to file
a speedy trial motion. He is suing the Chief Public Defender, David Olson, because he employs
Vazanellis and allowed him to refuse to file the motion. Finally, Evans is suing the elected
prosecuting attorney, Benard Carter, because he employs and has permitted prosecutors to deny
him a speedy trial.
First, a criminal defense attorney, even an appointed public defender, does not act under
color of state law. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (1981). Therefore the allegations that
Vazanellis and Olson did not file a speedy trial motion do not state a claim. Second, “in initiating
a prosecution and in presenting the State’s case, the prosecutor is immune from a civil suit for
damages under § 1983.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976). See also Smith v.
Power, 346 F.3d 740, 742 (7th Cir. 2003) (“Absolute immunity shields prosecutors even if they
act maliciously, unreasonably, without probable cause, or even on the basis of false testimony or
evidence.” (quotation marks and citation omitted)). Therefore prosecutorial immunity precludes
a claim for monetary damages based on the allegation that Carter was involved in denying Evans
a speedy trial. Third, injunctive relief is not available because the abstention doctrine set forth in
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 53 (1971) requires a federal district court to refrain from
interfering with pending state criminal proceedings in deference to principles of equity, comity,
and federalism.
Therefore this case must be dismissed. Though it is usually necessary “to give pro se
litigants one opportunity to amend after dismissing a complaint[,] that’s unnecessary where, as
here, it is certain from the face of the complaint that any amendment would be futile or otherwise
unwarranted.” Carpenter v. PNC Bank, Nat. Ass’n, No. 633 Fed. Appx. 346, 348 (7th Cir. Feb. 3,
2016) (quotation marks omitted). See Luevano v. Wal-Mart, 722 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir. 2013) and
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.”).
For these reasons, this case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
SO ORDERED on November 14, 2016.
s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen
JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?