Konrath v. Miami County

Filing 11

OPINION AND ORDER re 1 PRO SE COMPLAINT filed by Gregory Konrath. This case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Signed by Judge Jon E DeGuilio on 11/22/16. (cc: Gregory Konrath). (cer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
GREGORY KONRATH,
Plaintiff,
v.
MIAMI COUNTY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Cause No. 3:16-CV-664 JD

OPINION AND ORDER
Gregory Konrath, a pro se prisoner, filed a complaint alleging that the Miami County
Prosecutor had him arrested for attempted murder based on an affidavit which lacked probable
cause and then charged him with attempted murder even though the alleged offense did not occur
in Miami County. He also alleges that prosecutor fabricated a stalking charge against him and
offered him an excessive plea bargain. “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 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.
Konrath acknowledges that the prosecutor has immunity for these actions because “in
initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State’s case, the prosecutor is immune from a civil
suit for damages under § 1983.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976). “Moreover,
absolute immunity shields prosecutors even if they act maliciously, unreasonably, without

probable cause, or even on the basis of false testimony or evidence.” Id. (quotation marks and
citation omitted). Because Konrath cannot sue the prosecutor himself, he has named Miami County
as the defendant in this case.
He argues that Miami County is liable because a “municipal liability may be imposed for
a single decision by municipal policymakers under appropriate circumstances.” Pembaur v. City
of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 480 (1986). That is true, but this is not one of those circumstances.
The Prosecutor is not a municipal policy maker for Miami County. Indiana prosecutors are
independently elected judicial officers. Indiana Constitution Art. 7, § 16. They are not county
officers. Indiana Constitution Art. 6, § 2. Therefore Miami County cannot be held liable for the
actions of the Prosecutor.
Though it is usually necessary “to give pro se litigants one opportunity to amend after
dismissing a complaint[,] that’s unnecessary where, as here, it is certain from the face of the
complaint that any amendment would be futile or otherwise unwarranted.” Carpenter v. PNC
Bank, Nat. Ass’n, No. 633 Fed. Appx. 346, 348 (7th Cir. Feb. 3, 2016) (quotation marks omitted).
See Luevano v. Wal-Mart, 722 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir. 2013) and 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.”). Here, Miami County is not a proper defendant and amending
the complaint to name the Prosecutor would be futile because he has prosecutorial immunity.
For these reasons, this case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because it does
not state a claim against Miami County.

2

SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: November 22, 2016
/s/ JON E. DEGUILIO
Judge
United States District Judge

3