East v. Bunich et al
OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons set forth in the Opinion and Order, Defendants' 12 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Joseph S Van Bokkelen on 9/14/2017. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(jss)
United States District Court
Northern District of Indiana
LORRAINE C. EAST,
JOHN BUNCICH, OFFICER KRAUS,
SGT. BOSSE, and JASON S. CORLE,
Civil Action No. 2:16-CV-483 JVB
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on the motion of Defendants Buncich, Kraus, Bosse, and
Corle to dismiss pro se Plaintiff Lorraine East’s complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim (DE 12). Plaintiff has not responded to the
In her complaint, Plaintiff appears to claim that Defendants are liable to her because they
charged her with theft— a charge she maintains is frivolous—because of her race and in
retaliation for a suit she filed against them.
From the complaint and documents Plaintiff attached to it, the Court deduces that she
initiated a lawsuit on February 21, 2014. This first suit was filed as Case Number 2:14-CV-58 in
the Northern District of Indiana and was assigned to Judge Simon. On February 26, five days
after the first suit was filed, Plaintiff was charged with theft. The information was signed by
Defendant Corle and witnessed by Defendant Kraus. (See DE 1-1 at 1.) On or about November
17, 2014, the theft charge was dismissed. (See the motion to dismiss filed in the criminal
proceedings against East, DE 1-1 at 133.) Plaintiff filed the instant action on November 16,
Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim
on the grounds that it is barred by the doctrine of res judicata and was filed after the applicable
statute of limitations had expired. The Court reaches only Defendants’ statute of limitations
argument, because its resolution of that issue disposes of the case.
A statute of limitations defense is not normally appropriate for decision on a motion to
dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). However, it is appropriate to grant such a motion when the
allegations of the complaint itself set forth everything necessary to satisfy the affirmative
defense. Andonissamy v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 547 F.3d 841, 847 (7th Cir. 2008). Such is the
Defendants are correct that the Indiana two-year statute of limitations applies in this case.
Plaintiff’s cause of action for racial discrimination and retaliatory prosecution accrued, and the
statute of limitations began to run, immediately after the allegedly discriminatory and retaliatory
act occurred. See Gekas v. Vasiliades, 814 F.3d 890, 894 (7th Cir. 2016). In this case, according
to Plaintiff’s complaint, the alleged discriminatory and retaliatory act was the filing of criminal
charges against her, which occurred on February 26, 2014. Thus Plaintiff would have had to file
her complaint by February 26, 2016, to be within the two-year statute of limitations. However,
she did not file this suit until November 16, 2016, more than ten months after the statute of
limitations had expired. Accordingly, her suit must be dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. This case is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED on September 14, 2017.
s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen
Joseph S. Van Bokkelen
United States District Judge
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?