Cunningham v. Maughmer

Filing 3

ORDER DISMISSING CASE pursuant to 28:1915A. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 3/12/13. (smp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
TRAVIS CUNNINGHAM,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JUDGE RICK MAUGHMER,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 3:13-CV-161

OPINION AND ORDER
Travis Cunningham, a pro se prisoner, began this case by
filing a document captioned, “Motion to File a 42 U.S.C. 1983 Act
Tort Claim Against Judge Rick Maughmer for Violation of Civil
Rights and Monetary Damages” on March 4, 2013 (DE #1).

Because

Cunningham is proceeding pro se, the Clerk properly accepted this
as a complaint against Judge Rick Maughmer pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983.

For the reasons set forth below, the court DISMISSES this

case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

DISCUSSION
Travis Cunningham is suing state court Judge Rick Maughmer,
claiming the judge was biased against him during his criminal
trial.

He alleges that Judge Maughmer permitted the trial to

continue with illegal and inadequate evidence. He alleges that the
Judge sentenced him more harshly than another defendant and also
gave him an additional 30 days for insolence even though he had not

done anything wrong.

Judge Maughmer has absolute immunity for

judicial acts which are within the jurisdiction of his court. This
is true even if his “exercise of authority is flawed by the
commission of grave procedural errors.”
U.S.

349,

359

(1978).

Conducting

Stump v. Sparkman, 435
trials,

ruling

on

the

admissibility of evidence, and sentencing criminal defendants are
all within the jurisdiction of the state court.

Therefore, the

claims against Judge Maughmer must be dismissed.
In addition, Cunningham states that he is suing the prosecutor
and the State of Indiana because she charged him with a C felony
and was unethical during his trial.

These claims must also be

dismissed because, “in initiating a prosecution and in presenting
the State’s case, the prosecutor is immune from a civil suit for
damages under § 1983.”
(1976).

Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431

“Absolute immunity shields prosecutors even if they act

maliciously, unreasonably, without probable cause, or even on the
basis of false testimony or evidence.” Cooper v. Parrish, 203 F.3d
937, 947 (6th Cir. 2000) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
Moreover, the Eleventh Amendment precludes lawsuits in federal
court against a State for money damages unless Congress has
abrogated the State’s immunity from suit or the State has consented
to suit. MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Ill. Commerce Comm’n, 183
F.3d 558, 563 (7th Cir. 1999). Here, Indiana has not consented to
this suit, and Congress did not abrogate the State’s immunity

2

through the enactment of Section 1983.

See Joseph v. Bd. of

Regents of Univ. of Wis. Sys., 432 F.3d 746, 748 (7th Cir. 2005).
Therefore, Cunningham does not state a claim against either the
prosecutor or the State of Indiana.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the court DISMISSES this case
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

DATED: March 12, 2013

/s/ RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United States District Court

3