Smith v. Marvel
Filing
3
OPINION AND ORDER dismissing this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Joseph S Van Bokkelen on 9/22/11. (ksc)
United States District Court
Northern District of Indiana
MARVIN SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEPUTY MARVEL,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 3:11-CV-375 JVB
OPINION AND ORDER
Marvin Smith, a pro se prisoner, filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
that he was held in a padded cell and prevented from using the toilet for two hours. “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, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review the merits of a prisoner 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.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides for the dismissal of a complaint, or any
portion of a complaint, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Courts apply
the same standard under § 1915A as when addressing a motion under Rule 12(b)(6). Lagerstrom
v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir. 2006).
“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).
Smith alleges that on September 6, 2009, he was held in a padded cell and prevented
from using the toilet. He has attached an inmate grievance that he filed the next day complaining
about that incident. (ECF 1 at 2.) “Indiana’s two-year statute of limitations . . . is applicable to all
causes of action brought in Indiana under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Snodderly v. R.U.F.F. Drug
Enforcement Task Force, 239 F.3d 892, 894 (7th Cir. 2001). Therefore, the last day to file this
claim was September 6, 2011. Smith did not sign this complaint until September 13, 2011.
Although that is only a week past the deadline, because this complaint is untimely, it must be
dismissed. While the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, dismissal is appropriate
where the complaint makes clear that the claim is time barred. Cancer Foundation, Inc. v.
Cerberus Capital Mgmt., LP, 559 F.3d 671, 674 (7th Cir. 2009).
For the foregoing reasons, this case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
SO ORDERED on September 22, 2011.
s/Joseph S. Van Bokkelen
Joseph S. Van Bokkelen
United States District Judge
Hammond Division
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?