Sheneman et al v. Brook et al
Filing
18
OPINION AND ORDER dismissing case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Senior Judge James T Moody on 7/10/15. (cc: Plaintiff, with Clerk's Judgment)(ksp)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
MICHAEL SHENEMAN
Plaintiff,
vs.
BARBARA BROOK, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO. 3:14-CV-2086 JM
OPINION AND ORDER
Michael Sheneman, a pro se prisoner, signed and filed an amended complaint in
this case. He also signed Jeremie Sheneman’s name to the amended complaint and
attached a power of attorney purportedly giving him the right to do so. Though it is
unclear whether it is Jeremie’s intention to join this lawsuit as a co-plaintiff, it is clear
that Jeremie is pursuing nearly identical claims against these same defendants in a
separate lawsuit. See Sheneman v. United States of America, 3:15-CV-7 (N.D. Ind. filed
January 8, 2015). Because it is unnecessary for Jeremie to be a plaintiff in this lawsuit in
order to pursue those claims and because it would be malicious for Jeremie to sue the
same defendants for the same events in two separate lawsuits, Jeremie will not be
added as a plaintiff to this lawsuit based solely on Michael’s assertion that Jeremie
should be included as a co-plaintiff in this case.
In screening the original complaint in this case, the court found that Michael had
not stated a claim against Assistant United States Attorney Barbara Brook, Assistant
United States Attorney Jesse Barrett, United States Attorney David Capp, FBI Special
Agent Tim Theriault, or the United States of America based on the Federal Tort Claims
Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1985, or Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed.
Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 394 (1971).1 (DE # 12.) Nevertheless, pursuant to
Luevano v. Wal-Mart, 722 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir. 2013), he was permitted the opportunity to
file an amended complaint.
In this amended complaint, he repeats his claims based on the Federal Tort
Claims Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and 42 U.S.C. § 1985. He makes no mention of Bivens.
More importantly, the factual basis provided in the amended complaint has not
meaningfully changed and it does not state a claim. As previously explained, “the
United States is the proper and exclusive defendant for his claims under the FTCA.”
King v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 728 F.3d 410, 413 n.2 (5th Cir. 2013). See also Hui v.
Castaneda, 559 U.S. 799, 801-02 (2010). Therefore Michael does not state a claim against
any of the four individual defendants based on the Federal Tort Claims Act. Moreover,
he does not state a claim against the United States because his allegations that the
individual defendants gathered truthful evidence by interviewing witnesses and
conducting a handwriting analysis prior to trial were not tortious acts from which
liability can arise. Thereafter the selection of evidence, exhibits, and testimony for use
in his criminal trial and the decisions about what and when to disclose the gathered
evidence against him was a discretionary function to which the FTCA does not apply.
1
The court’s prior order incorrectly referred to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as 28 U.S.C. § 1983. It also
incorrectly referred to 42 U.S.C. § 1985 as 28 U.S.C. § 1985. Despite the citation errors, the court’s
explanations of why Michael had not stated a claim based on those statutes was an accurate statement of
the law.
2
See 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a) and Moore v. Valder, 65 F.3d 189, 197 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (“Deciding
whether to prosecute, assessing a witness’s credibility to ensure that he is giving an
accurate and complete account of what he knows, identifying the evidence to submit to
the grand jury and determining whether information is ‘exculpatory’ and ‘material’
and therefore must be disclosed pursuant to a Brady request are actions that require the
prosecutor to exercise his professional judgment. They are therefore quintessentially
discretionary.”). Thus, Michael does not state a claim based on the Federal Tort Claims
Act.
His claims based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1985 fair no better. Section 1983 only
applies to persons acting under color of state law. The defendants here are federal
officers and so § 1983 is not a basis for a cause of action in this case. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 675-76 (2009) (“In the limited settings where Bivens does apply, the
implied cause of action is the federal analog to suits brought against state officials
under . . . 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Section 1985
“prohibits a conspiracy . . . motivated by racial, or other class-based discriminatory
animus.” Smith v. Gomez, 550 F.3d 613, 617 (7th Cir. 2008). Michael has not alleged that
the defendants’ actions were motivated by discriminatory animus of any type, therefore
he does not state a claim under § 1985 either.
Moreover, even if the § 1983 claims were analyzed as Bivens claims, they would
not state a claim. Michael alleges that defendants interviewed witnesses and obtained
truthful information from those witnesses. He alleges that they conducted an analysis
of his handwriting and determined that he had not signed documents using other
3
persons’ names. Those activities do not constitute manufacturing false evidence and
they did not violate his Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, or any other
constitutional rights. Though Michael alleges the evidence presented to the grand and
petit juries was false and fraudulent, those are either prosecutorial acts subject to
absolute prosecutorial immunity2 or witness testimony subject to witness immunity.3
For these reasons, this case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
SO ORDERED.
Date: July 10, 2015
s/James T. Moody
JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
“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).
3
Police officers, like other witnesses, are immune from suit based on their testimony. Briscoe v.
LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 341-43 (1983).
4
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?