Payne v. Lahey

Filing 4

OPINION AND ORDER: This case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because it does not state a claim. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 1/9/2017. (lhc)(cc: Plaintiff)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
ANDRE DEMETRIC PAYNE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CHARLES W. LAHEY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 3:16-CV-854

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the complaint filed by
Andre Demetric Payne, a pro se prisoner, on December 15, 2016. “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,
a 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.
Payne alleges that his State court criminal defense attorney
violated the Sixth Amendment by not introducing the interview
statement of his co-defendant to prove that he acted in selfdefense. “In order to state a claim under § 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).

A criminal defense attorney, even an appointed public defender,
does not act under color of state law. Polk County v. Dodson, 454
U.S. 312 (1981). Therefore Payne has not stated a federal law claim
under § 1983.
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.”).
For these reasons, this case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A because it does not state a claim.

DATED: January 9, 2017

/s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United States District Court

2