Sheneman v. Truitt

Filing 6

OPINION AND ORDER: The 1 Pro Se Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 6/12/2015. (cc: Sheneman)(rmc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
JEREMIE SHENEMAN,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
ROBERT TRUITT,
Defendant.

CAUSE NO. 3:15-CV-103

OPINION AND ORDER
This

matter

is

before

the

Court

on

the

“Civil

Legal

Malpractice Complaint under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1332", filed by
Plaintiff, Jeremie Sheneman, a pro se prisoner, on March 9, 2015.
For the reasons set forth below, the complaint is DISMISSED without
prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND
Jeremie Sheneman (“Sheneman”) brings suit against, Robert D.
Truitt, the court-appointed attorney who represented him in two
2011 wire fraud prosecutions: United States v. Sheneman, 3:10-CR120 (N.D. Ind. Filed September 9, 2010), and United States v.
Sheneman, 3:10-CR-126 (N.D. Ind. Filed October 13, 2010).

He

alleges Attorney Truitt was negligent in his representation and
brings a state law claim against him for legal malpractice.

-1-

Sheneman has brought suit here claiming this court has subject
matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship.

DISCUSSION
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, a Court must review a prisoner
complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious,
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915A. In determining whether the complaint states a
claim, a court applies the same standard as when deciding a motion
to dismiss 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,
however, 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).
Because jurisdiction is the first question in every federal
case, Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541

-2-

(1986), the court must address whether it has subject matter
jurisdiction. “In order to support diversity jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. sec. 1332, two basic requirements must be satisfied: (1)
complete diversity of citizenship between the plaintiffs and the
defendants and (2) the proper amount in controversy (more than $
75,000).” Neuma, Inc. v. AMP, Inc., 259 F.3d 864, 881 (7th Cir.
2001).

The complaint shows the parties have complete diversity of

citizenship.

That satisfies the first inquiry.

While Sheneman seeks $10,000,000 in compensatory and punitive
damages, it

must be determined if it is legally possible for

Sheneman to recover $75,000 on this claim. See Back Doctors Ltd. v.
Metro.

Prop.

&

Cas.

Ins.,637

F.3d

827,

830

(7th

Cir.

2011)

(“[U]nless recovery of an amount exceeding the jurisdictional
minimum

is

court.”).

legally

impossible,

the

case

belongs

in

federal

The Seventh Circuit has recently faced the identical

issue this Court here. See Banks v. Preston Humphrey, LLC, No. 143766, 2015 WL 1840665 (April 23, 2015).

In Banks, the plaintiff

was convicted of drug charges and sued his court-appointed attorney
for legal malpractice.

The Seventh Circuit noted that, “[b]ecause

Banks did not pay [the court-appointed attorney] to represent him,
the only plausible damages to Banks from [the attorney’s] allegedly
compromised advice to plead guilty would be for the time that Banks
has been wrongly convicted.

Id. at *2 (citing Lafler v. Cooper,

132 S.Ct. 1376, 1384-85 (2012)). But, because his conviction was

-3-

still intact, the Seventh Circuit noted that the possibility of
damages for a wrongful conviction was eliminated.
(citing Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)).

Id. at *2
As a result,

Banks’ actual damages could not meet the jurisdictional threshold.
Id. at *3.

And, because Banks was not entitled to recovery

punitive damages, the Seventh Circuit dismissed Banks’ case for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Id.

Sheneman, like Banks, did not pay for his court-appointed
counsel to represent him.

Thus, the only actual damages Sheneman

could recover due to Truitt’s alleged malpractice would be for the
time that Sheneman has been wrongly incarcerated. However, because
Sheneman’s convictions are still intact, (see 3:10-CR-120 and 3:10CR-126), he can not recover for any such damages.

As a result, a

recovery of punitive damages would be the only way Sheneman could
meet the amount in controversy requirement.
In Indiana, “punitive damages may be awarded only upon a
showing of willful and wanton misconduct such that the defendant
subjected other persons to probable injury, with an awareness of
such

impending

consequences.
fraudulently,

danger
Or

and

where

with

heedless

the

oppressively,

or

indifference

defendant

acted

with

negligence

gross

of

the

maliciously,
and

the

conduct was not the result of a mistake of law or fact, honest
error of judgment, overzealousness, mere negligence or other such
noniniquitous human failing.”

Yost v. Wabash College, 3 N.E.3d

-4-

509, 523-24 (Ind. 2014) (citations and quotations omitted).
Here, Sheneman alleges his attorney was negligent in providing
representation.

Sheneman complains that Attorney Truitt failed to

disclose pretrial discovery to him and also failed to make various
arguments on Sheneman’s behalf at trial.

In sum, he alleges

Attorney Truitt was simply unprepared to defend the case. (DE 1 at
4, ¶ 22; at 5.)

While Sheneman’s complaint pleads a breach of

professional duty, (Id. at 2 ¶ 5), it does not plead intentional
misconduct.

Thus, punitive damages are unavailable in this case.

There is no theoretical possibility that Sheneman can meet the
amount in controversy requirement. As such, this case must be
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Though it is

usually necessary to permit a plaintiff the opportunity to file an
amended complaint when a case is dismissed sua sponte, see Luevano
v. Wal-Mart, 722 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir. 2013), that is unnecessary
where the amendment would be futile. Hukic v. Aurora Loan Servs.,
588 F.3d 420, 432 (7th Cir. 2009) (“[C]ourts have broad discretion
to deny leave to amend where . . . the amendment would be
futile.”). Such is the case here. Until Sheneman’s convictions are
overturned, his legal malpractice claim against his court appointed
attorney can not meet the amount in controversy requirement, no
matter how it is pled.

-5-

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, this case is the complaint is
DISMISSED

without

prejudice

for

lack

of

subject

matter

jurisdiction.

DATED: June 12, 2015

/s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United States District Court

-6-