Wayer v. St Joseph County Indiana et al

Filing 6

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 1 Pro Se Complaint; GRANTS Joseph Thomas Wayer until 6/30/2015, to file an amended complaint; and CAUTIONS Joseph Thomas Wayer that if he does not respond by that deadline, final judgment will be entered against him in this case. Signed by Chief Judge Philip P Simon on 5/27/2015. (cc: Wayer)(rmc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
JOSEPH THOMAS WAYER,
Plaintiff,
v.
ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, INDIANA, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 3:15-cv-00065-PPS

OPINION AND ORDER
Joseph Thomas Wayer was convicted of murdering his ex-wife. Wayer v. State, 20
N.E. 3d 608 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (table); Wayer v. State, No. 71A03-1310-CR-415, 2014
Ind. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1248, at *5 (Ind. Ct. App. Sept. 18, 2014). The only physical
evidence connecting him to the crime scene were two hairs found on the victim. Id. (and
Complaint at 4 and 5, DE 1). Detective Galen Pelletier investigated the crime. He took
buccal swabs and two strands of Wayer’s hair. The swabs were sent to the crime lab,
but the hair samples disappeared. Wayer alleges that Detective Pelletier manufactured
the evidence necessary to convict him by intentionally placing those hair samples with
ones collected from the victim’s body – thereby making it look like Wayer had been at
the scene of the crime. In this case, Wayer is suing Detective Pelletier, his supervisor
Detective Tim Corbett, and his employer St. Joseph County. Wayer is not seeking to
overturn his conviction with this case, but rather is suing for damages based on a
number of theories including constitutional violations, false imprisonment, slander, and
mental and physical anguish.

Wayer is a prisoner and he filed this case pro se. “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) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Nevertheless, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A, I must review the merits of cases filed by prisoners.
This complaint has one critical problem: in order for Wayer to win this case for
damages, he has to prove that he was convicted using fraudulent evidence. Doing this
would undermine his conviction. However, in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87
(1994), the Supreme Court explained that “in order to recover damages for allegedly
unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions
whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff
must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal,
expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make
such a determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of
habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.” Here, Wayer filed this case from the Indiana State
Prison. He states that he was convicted and makes no mention of his conviction having
been overturned in any way. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction.
Wayer v. State, No. 71A03-1310-CR-415, 2014 Ind. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1248 (Ind. Ct.
App. Sept. 18, 2014). Based on this complaint, it would not be plausible for me to
conclude that Wayer was not now being held on this conviction. Thus, Wayer may not
proceed on these claims at this time. Nevertheless, if his conviction has been set aside
2

somehow, he needs to file an amended complaint providing that additional
information. See Luevano v. Wal-Mart, 722 F.3d 1014, 1023 (7th Cir. 2013) (“District courts
must allow IFP plaintiffs leave to amend at least once in all circumstances in which such
leave would be granted to fee-paying plaintiffs under Rule 15(a).”).
For the foregoing reasons, the court: (1) DISMISSES this complaint WITHOUT
PREJUDICE; (2) GRANTS Joseph Thomas Wayer until June 30, 2015, to file an
amended complaint; and (3) CAUTIONS Joseph Thomas Wayer that if he does not
respond by that deadline, final judgment will be entered against him in this case.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: May 27, 2015
/s/ Philip P. Simon
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3