Holmes v. Fort Wayne Police Department et al
Filing
8
OPINION AND ORDER dismissing case pursuant to 28:1915A. ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Theresa L Springmann on 8/13/2013. (kds)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
QUINTIN HOLMES,
)
Plaintiff,
v.
THOMAS STRAUSBERGER, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO.: 3:13-CV-642-TLS
OPINION AND ORDER
Quintin Holmes, a prisoner who is proceeding in this litigation pro se, filed an amended
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 [ECF No. 7]. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must
review a prisoner 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. 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. In other words, the plaintiff
“must do better than putting a few words on paper that, in the hands of an imaginative reader,
might suggest that something has happened to her that might be redressed by the law.” Swanson
v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 403 (7th Cir. 2010) (emphasis in original). Nevertheless, the
court must bear in mind that a pro se complaint is entitled to liberal construction, “however
inartfully pleaded.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
Here, Holmes claims that three officers from the Fort Wayne Police Department violated
his constitutional rights. Specifically, he alleges that Sergeant Thomas Strausberger had a
vendetta against him based on a 2007 criminal case in which Holmes was convicted of criminal
recklessness after shooting at Sergeant Strausberger. Holmes claims that he served three years in
prison for this offense. He further claims that following his release, on September 30, 2010,
Officer David Klein stopped him for no reason, searched his pockets, and used excessive force
against him. He alleges that Officer Klein and Sergeant Strausberger then arrested him on a
“trumped up charge,” and that on the same date Officer Shane Pulver, acting in concert with the
other two officers, searched his home without a warrant or his consent. It is apparent from the
complaint that Holmes was convicted of some criminal offense based on these events,1 and is
presently incarcerated pursuant to that conviction. In this suit, he seeks $3 million in damages
against the three officers, among other relief.
The Fourth Amendment guarantees the “right of people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. CONST . AMEND.
IV. Claims for false arrest, excessive force, unlawful search, and other Fourth Amendment
violations accrue at the time of the violation. Dominguez v. Hendley, 545 F.3d 585, 589 (7th Cir.
2008). In Indiana such claims must be brought within two years. Behavioral Inst. of Ind., LLC v.
Hobart City of Common Council, 406 F.3d 926, 929 (7th Cir. 2005). Although timeliness is an
affirmative defense, dismissal at the pleading stage is appropriate if the defense is apparent from
the complaint itself. See Walker v. Thompson, 288 F.3d 1005, 1010 (7th Cir. 2002). Here, it is
apparent from the Complaint that Holmes is complaining about an arrest that occurred in
September 2010, which was more than two years ago. His Fourth Amendment claims are
untimely and must be dismissed.
1
Attachments Holmes’s submits show that he was arrested on charges of dealing in cocaine, possession of
marijuana, and resisting law enforcement. (ECF No. 7 at 10-12.)
2
For the sake of completeness, the court notes that Holmes may also be trying to raise a
claim that he is being wrongfully incarcerated because of the officers’ actions, or that he was
given an unduly long sentence because of Sergeant Strausberger’s improper influence. These
claims would be barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994), because they rest
on a presumption that his conviction and sentence are invalid. The claims cannot be brought
unless and until his conviction is “reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order,
declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into
question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 486–87.
For the reasons set forth above, this action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A.
SO ORDERED on August 13, 2013.
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?