Cunningham v. Maughmer et al
Filing
10
OPINION AND ORDER: this action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Theresa L Springmann on 12/21/11. (jld)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TRAVIS CUNNINGHAM,
Plaintiff,
v.
RICHARD MAUGHMER and
LISA SWAIM,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO.: 3:11-CV-483-TLS
OPINION AND ORDER
Travis Cunningham, a prisoner proceeding pro se, submitted a Prisoner Complaint under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 [ECF No. 1]. 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (b).
Courts apply the same standard as when deciding a motion under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). See 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. Ind.
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. In determining whether the complaint
states a claim, 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)
(internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
This lawsuit stems from a criminal case in Cass County in which Cunningham was
convicted of drug offenses. Documents he attaches to the Complaint indicate that on November
1, 2010, his probation was revoked and the court reinstated a 3,082 day suspended sentence.
(Compl. 1.) Cunningham was represented by counsel at this hearing. (Id.) Cunningham claims
that Judge Richard Maughmer orally “promised” that if Cunningham completed a particular
program while in prison, his sentence would be modified to time-served. Cunningham claims
that he completed the program in October 2011, but Judge Maughmer denied his subsequent
motions to modify his sentence. He is suing the judge for $40,000 for “breach of contract.”
(Compl. 5.)
Cunningham’s breach of contract claim cannot proceed because Judge Maughmer is
entitled to absolute judicial immunity for his actions in connection with Cunningham’s criminal
case. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 359 (1978) (a judge is entitled to absolute immunity for
judicial acts regarding matters within his jurisdiction, even if the judge’s “exercise of authority is
flawed by the commission of grave procedural errors”). This immunity applies even if the judge
erred in denying Cunningham’s motions. Dawson v. Newman, 419 F.3d 656, 660–61 (7th Cir.
2005). Cunningham’s remedy was “through appellate process,” not a civil rights lawsuit. Id. at
661. Because Judge Maughmer cannot liable for the misconduct alleged, this claim must be
dismissed.
Cunningham also sues Lisa Swaim, the prosecutor assigned to his case. He seeks $40,00
from her as well on the ground that she broke her promise to him by declining to support his
motions for sentence modification. Swaim is entitled to prosecutorial immunity for her actions
taken in connection with Cunningham’s criminal case. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431
2
(1976) (“[I]n initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State’s case, the prosecutor is immune
from a civil suit for damages under § 1983.”); Smith v. Power, 346 F.3d 740, 742 (7th Cir. 2003)
(“Prosecutors are absolutely immune from suits for monetary damages under § 1983 for conduct
that is ‘intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.’”) (quoting Imbler,
424 U.S. at 430). The Complaint does not assert a plausible claim against Swaim based on her
failure to support Cunningham’s request for modification of his sentence, and the claim must be
dismissed.
For the reasons stated above, this action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
SO ORDERED on December 21, 2011.
s/ Theresa L. Springmann
THERESA L. SPRINGMANN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
3
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?