Webster v. US Attorney et al

Filing 10

OPINION AND ORDER: DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE defendants U.S. Attorney and Assistant U.S. Attorney R. Schaffer; DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE the South Bend Police Chief and the St. Joseph County States Attorney; and DIRECTING the clerk to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Chief Judge Philip P Simon on 1/15/2016. (lhc)(cc: Plaintiff)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
TOMMY WEBSTER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
U.S. ATTORNEY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 3:15-cv-554-PPS

OPINION AND ORDER
Tommy Webster, a pro se prisoner, filed an amended complaint [DE 9] on
January 4, 2016 that was not docketed until after my prior order [DE 8] was entered on
January 5, 2016. As a result of that delay and based on his reply [DE 6] to my prior
December 17, 2015 order [DE 4] granting him until January 14, 2016 to file an amended
complaint and cautioning him that if he did not respond to that deadline, this case
would be dismissed without further notice because the current complaint did not state a
claim, it appeared to me that Webster needed additional time to file an amended
complaint. So in my January 5, 2016 order [DE 8], I granted him until February 11, 2016,
to do file an amended complaint. It is now clear, however, that Webster does not need
additional time to file an amended complaint because did so on January 4, 2016.
Webster’s amended complaint does not differ from the complaint in any
meaningful way and fails to remedy the deficiencies in the complaint. In the amended
complaint, Webster seeks compensation for a number of items seized by the South Bend
Police Department from his home pursuant to a warrant issued by the St. Joseph

Superior Court in March 2011. “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 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.
In connection with events related to the seizure of the property at issue here,
Webster was charged and convicted of federal crimes. See United States v. Webster, 3:11CR-67 (N.D. Ind. filed May 12, 2011). In that criminal proceeding, Webster also litigated
his claims about these items, filing a Motion to Reopen & For Review & Mandamus
Regarding Records Inaccuracies Based Property Divestiture & for Other Necessary and
Warranted Relief. Id. at DE 126. Webster requested that the Court reopen the action
and grant the return of his property or its monetary equivalent of $80,000. Id. In
denying Webster’s motion, Judge Miller ruled that “the undisputed evidence clearly
shows that the federal government doesn’t have possession of the items Mr. Webster
seeks.” Id. at DE 130. That ruling was based on affidavits explaining that these items
were seized by the South Bend Police Department, but never turned over to federal
authorities. Id. at DE 129-1, 2. To the extent that Webster disagrees with that ruling, he
may challenge it in that proceeding, but he cannot re-litigate it in this one. See Ross v.
Bd. of Educ. of Twp. H.S. Dist., 211, 486 F.3d 279, 282 (7th Cir. 2008) (“A fundamental
2

precept of common-law adjudication . . . is that a right, question or fact distinctly put in
issue and directly determined by a court of competent jurisdiction cannot be disputed
in a subsequent suit between the same parties or their privies.” (citations and quotations
omitted)).
In his amended complaint, Webster is suing four defendants. Two of them are
federal officials who Judge Miller ruled never had possession of the seized property.
Suing them in this case is frivolous. Defendants U.S. Attorney and Assistant U.S.
Attorney R. Schaffer, therefore, will be dismissed with prejudice.
Webster is also suing two State defendants. The Fourteenth Amendment
provides that state officials shall not “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law.” However, a state tort claims act that provides a method
by which a person can seek reimbursement for the negligent loss or intentional
depravation of property meets the requirements of the due process clause by providing
due process of law. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984); Wynn v. Southward, 251
F.3d 588, 593 (7th Cir. 2001) (“Wynn has an adequate post-deprivation remedy in the
Indiana Tort Claims Act, and no more process was due.”). Because the State of Indiana
provides a means to obtain redress for Webster’s loss, he has not been denied due
process and does not state a claim for a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Therefore, the two State defendants, South Bend Police Chief and St. Joseph County
States Attorney, will be dismissed without prejudice so that he may pursue those claims
in State court should he choose to do so.
3

For these reasons, the Court:
(1) DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE defendants U.S. Attorney and Assistant U.S.
Attorney R. Schaffer;
(2) DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE South Bend Police Chief and the St.
Joseph County States Attorney; and
(3) DIRECTS the clerk to enter judgment accordingly.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: January 15, 2016
_s/ Philip P. Simon_______________
PHILIP P. SIMON, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4