Seeley v. Kellerman

Filing 5

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING the 1 Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 6/19/2013. (cc: to Plaintiff) ***Civil Case Terminated (lyb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
C. WAYNE SEELEY III,
Plaintiff,
v.

CLAY KELLERMAN,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 3:13-CV-589 RM

OPINION AND ORDER
C. Wayne Seeley III, a pro se prisoner, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (DE
1.) 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 Courts apply the same standard under Section
1915A as when deciding a motion under FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(b)(6).
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. Indiana 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. 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).

Mr. Seeley is suing Clay Kellerman, a judge in Franklin County Circuit Court. He
claims that Judge Kellerman violated his right to a speedy trial, as well as other rights,
during a criminal case. He seeks $200,000 “for the suffering mentally and getting found
guilty[.]” This claim can’t proceed. The judge is entitled to absolute immunity for acts
performed within his judicial capacity, including rulings made in Mr. Seeley’s case. See
Dawson v. Newman, 419 F.3d 656, 660-661 (7th Cir. 2005). If the judge’s orders were
erroneous as Mr. Seeley argues, his remedy would be through state appellate process, not
a federal civil rights suit for damages.1 Id. at 661. To the extent Mr. Seeley is trying to have
his conviction invalidated or otherwise obtain release from prison, he must pursue such
relief in a habeas proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, subject to the requirements of the
Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). See 28 U.S.C. § 2254;
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 488 (1973) (habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for
a state prisoner who challenges the fact or duration of his confinement).
For the reasons set forth above, the court DISMISSES the complaint (DE 1) pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: June 19 , 2013
/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr.
Judge
United States District Court

Mr. Seeley lists the State of Indiana in the caption but not in the body of the
complaint. If he is trying to sue the state for damages, such a claim is barred by the
Eleventh Amendment. Kashani v. Purdue University, 813 F.2d. 843, 845 (7th Cir. 1987).
1

2