Konrath v. Huneryager et al
Filing
11
OPINION AND ORDER: This case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/17/2016. (lhc)(cc: Plaintiff)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
GREGORY KONRATH,
Plaintiff,
v.
ERIC HUNERYAGER, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO. 3:16-CV-489 RM
OPINION AND ORDER
Gregory Konrath, a pro se prisoner, filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
“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. “In order to state a claim under [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 a plaintiff must
allege: (1) that defendants deprived him of a federal constitutional right; and (2) that the
defendants acted under color of state law.” Savory v. Lyons, 469 F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir.
2006).
Mr. Konrath is currently an inmate at the Westville Correctional Facility. He first
alleges that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated when his attorney provided
him with deficient representation during his underlying criminal case in Miami County,
Indiana. This claim is foreclosed. The Constitution only protects against acts of defendants
-1-
acting under color of state law, Savory v. Lyons, 469 F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir. 2006), and a
criminal defense attorney “does not act under color of state law when performing a
lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal proceeding.” Polk
County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981). Furthermore, to the extent Mr. Konrath is
seeking some type of order declaring that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated in the
criminal case, he can only seek such relief in a habeas action brought under 28 U.S.C. §
2254.1 Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 488 (1973) (habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy
for a state prisoner who challenges the fact or duration of his confinement). This claim must
be dismissed.
Next, Mr. Konrath asserts that the State of Indiana violated his Fourth Amendment
rights when the prosecutor transferred his criminal case to a different county from where
the alleged crime occurred. Based on this, Konrath seeks money damages from the State.
Such a claim for money damages cannot be maintained against the State of Indiana, as it
is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from a damages suit. Kashani v. Purdue
University, 813 F.2d. 843, 845 (7th Cir. 1987). The State of Indiana can’t be maintained as
a defendant and must be dismissed from this case.
Though it is usually necessary to give a plaintiff an 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
1
Which Konrath is currently pursuing. (See DE 1 at 9.)
-2-
to amend where . . . the amendment would be futile.”). Such is the case here because no
amendment could make these allegations a constitutional violation, make the private
attorney a state actor, or allow Mr. Konrath to recover money damages from the State of
Indiana.
For the forgoing reasons, this case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: August 17 , 2016.
/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr.
Judge
United States District Court
-3-
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?