Jones v. Bradford

Filing 3

OPINION AND ORDER re 1 Pro Se Complaint: Court DISMISSES this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 10/26/15. cc: Jones(mc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
MICHAEL S. JONES,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
ROGER V. BRADFORD,
Defendant.

CAUSE NO. 3:15-CV-476

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on the complaint (DE 1) filed
by Michael S. Jones, a pro se prisoner, on October 13, 2015. Jones
is suing State court Judge Roger V. Bradford. He alleges that Judge
Bradford “violated due process and due course of law, and equal
protection of the law, he violated the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article One,
Section Twelve and Twenty Three of the Indiana Constitution.” DE 1
at 4. Jones alleges that these violations occurred in “Porter
County Courtroom #1.” DE 1 at 3.
“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,
the Court must review the merits of a prisoner complaint.

Judge Bradford has absolute immunity for judicial acts which
are within the jurisdiction of his court. This is true even if his
“exercise of authority is flawed by the commission of grave
procedural errors.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 359 (1978).
“The Superior Court is a court of general jurisdiction” Storm v.
Storm, 328 F.3d 941, 946 n.3 (7th Cir. 2003), therefore Judge
Bradford has absolute immunity for the judicial rulings he made
which Jones alleges violated his rights.
For the reasons set forth above, the court DISMISSES this case
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

DATED: October 26, 2015

/s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United State District Court

-2-