Bolin v. Persin et al

Filing 13

OPINION AND ORDER: This case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Signed by Judge Jon E DeGuilio on 3/26/18. (Copy mailed to pro se party). (nal)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
STEPHEN K. BOLIN,
Plaintiff,
v.

CAUSE NO.: 3:17-CV-975-JD-MGG

SEAN C. LESHNEY,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
Stephen K. Bolin, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed an amended complaint
against Sean C. Leshney, the Tippecanoe Prosecutor’s Chief Digital Forensics
Investigator. Bolin alleges Leshney lied on the probable cause affidavit used to obtain
the warrant for his arrest. A filing by an unrepresented party “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.
Bolin was convicted and sentenced for Obstruction of Justice. He alleges Leshney
made a false statement of material fact in the Affidavit of Probable Cause. The Fourth
Amendment is violated “if the requesting officer knowingly, intentionally, or with
reckless disregard for the truth, makes false statements in requesting the warrant and

the false statements were necessary to the determination that a warrant should issue.”
Betker v. Gomez, 692 F.3d 854, 860 (7th Cir. 2012) quoting Knox v. Smith, 342 F.3d 651, 658
(7th Cir. 2003). Here, the false statement was not material. Therefore this compliant does
not state a claim.
The relevant facts here are somewhat complicated. Thankfully, Bolin has
attached a copy of the direct appeal brief from his State criminal conviction. The
Statement of Facts section of his brief to the Court of Appeals of Indiana provides the
relevant underlying facts.
Between the dates of June 25, 2016 and September 4, 2016, Bolin
and James Trans 1 were roommates at the Tippecanoe County Jail. On
September 4, 2016, Bolin was released from the Tippecanoe County Jail.
As of September, 2106 [sic], Detective Dowell of the Tippecanoe County
Sheriff’s Department was the lead investigator on charges pending against
Trans which alleged that he had molested his three daughters. Between
the afternoon hours of September 11 and the early morning hours of
September 12, 2016, Dowell received three e-mails relating to the Trans
case which he forwarded to Chief Investigator Dawn Gross of the
Tippecanoe County Prosecutor’s Office.
The first two e-mails were virtually identical and came from
[e-mail]. Those e-mails stated that the author is a
respected member of a church and would lose his position if he physically
came forward, but wanted to relate that he had overheard a conversation
between Lindsey Bishop and S.T. (one of the alleged victims in the Trans
case) to the effect that “the plan to falsely accuse S.T.’s father of sexual acts
was working perfectly”. Those e-mails went on to say that Bishop and S.T.
were “laughing about how they got Church Counselor Susan Moody and
S.T.’s sisters to go along with the false accusations”. The third e-mail came
from [e-mail] and the author was identified as
Stephen Bolin. That e-mail contained an attached letter to Honorable
Judge Busch (presiding Judge on Trans’ case) from Stephen K. Bolin with

1 The brief misspells the name as “Trans,” but his name is actually “Tran.” See State v. Tran,
79C01-1606-FA-000004 (Tippecanoe Circuit Court filed 6/22/2016), docket sheet available at:
https://public.courts.in.gov/mycase/#/vw/CaseSummary/eyJ2Ijp7IkNhc2VUb2tlbiI6Ik1ERXpOVEV3
T0RFeE1qTXdPakUyTlRFeU1qUXlOV1k9In19.

2

a telephone number of [phone]. In the attached letter to Judge
Busch, Bolin relates that both he and Trans reviewed discovery materials
which Trans had received on August 12, 2016 and noted that the alleged
victims had not described distinct characteristics of Trans’ penis,
including birthmarks. Bolin’s letter went on to say that two of the alleged
victims in the Trans case had initially denied being molested in statements
given to investigators on June 5, 2016, but were then coerced into giving
different accounts in statements provided June 12, 2016. On September 12,
2016, Bolin gave a statement to Gross wherein he admitted to sending the
e-mail from the [e-mail] account, but denied
sending the e-mails from the [e-mail] account. Due to
the timing of the e-mails and similar grammatical errors contained therein,
Gross suspected that Bolin sent all e-mails in question. The Prosecutor’s
Office thereafter obtained records from Google and Yahoo which
demonstrated that all e-mails in question had been sent from the Knight’s
Inn on State Road 26 East in Lafayette where Bolin had been staying at the
time and that telephone number [phone] was associated with both
e-mail accounts.
ECF 12-1 at 34 and 28 (citations omitted). 2
The Affidavit of Probable Cause, provides the other necessary facts. The
emphasized sentence is the one Bolin argues is false.
On September 11th, 2017 at 2249 hours an email was sent from
[e-mail] to Attorney Brett Gibson, Tippecanoe County
Sheriff’s Detective Dowell, [e-mail], and
[e-mail]. The email purported to be from a “Samual Smith”
and asserted that he was “respectable person in the church and would
lose that position if I physically came forward” if he stated “what he
heard”. “Smith” claimed he overheard a conversation between two
victims in a child molestation case, State v. Tran, discussing that the
victims were falsely accusing the molester. The email went on to state
“As someone in my position, I can’t physically come forward because of
my oath to the church, but I can let the Press know.” Approximately
sixteen minutes after the “samualsmith” email was received, Detective
Dowell received an email from Stephen Bolin stating he intended to file a
letter with the court concerning the same child molesting case, State v.
Tran as was referenced in the samualsmith email and which asserted “I
The pages of the brief were not scanned in numerical order, but the quoted section comes from
pages 4 and 5 of the Brief of Appellant Stephen Keith Bolin, Jr.
2

3

am not going to allow you or the Prosecutors office to Convict an Innocent
Man.” Bolin did also send letters to the court purporting to have seen the
accused’s penis and describing that the victims in the molest case were
surely lying if not able to describe it (defendant’s penis) they [sic] way he
(Bolin) observed it to be. Investigation of the matter revealed that Bolin
had been jail cell mates with the accused in State v. Tran[s], and that Tran
had made arrangements to give Bolin access to his bank accounts. While
Bolin told others that he took the money from Tran to help him “hire a
new attorney” for his case, that amount of money is insufficient to hire an
attorney and instead believed to have been a “pay-off” to Bolin for his
efforts to mislead the court, police and prosecutors about Tran’s case.
Investigator Jeremy Stanley made contact with Bolin, but he denied
having sent any of the “Smith” emails. However, further investigation,
including forensic analysis of the emails/internet records, revealed that
Bolin had in fact sent the emails and had pretended to be “Samual Smith”
in an attempt to mislead police, the court and prosecutors on Tran’s
behalf.
ECF 12-1 at 4 (emphasis added). Finally, Bolin quotes part of the email which said: “I
overheard a conversation between Lindsey Bishop and S--- T--- stating that the Plan to
Falsely Accuse S--- T--- father of Child Molestation was working perfectly.” ECF 12 at 3.
Bolin argues that nowhere in the original email is the word “victim” used.
However, he states, “[t]he only victim that was named within the E-mail was S--- T---.”
ECF 12 at 3. Because S--- T--- was a victim in State v. Tran, it was not a false statement to
have referred to her as a victim in the Affidavit.
Bolin also argues that Lindsey Bishop was not a victim and the affidavit falsely
states that the conversation was between two victims. Bolin argues this was an
intentional misrepresentation because Leshney had been working on the State v. Tran
case for over four months and knew Lindsey Bishop was not a victim. As such, at this
stage Bolin has plausibly alleged that Leshney intentionally and falsely swore under
penalty of perjury that the email discussed a conversation between two victims.
4

However, it was not relevant to the issuance of the warrant whether the conversation
included one victim or two. Rather, the critical part of this sentence in the affidavit is
that a victim, S--- T---, was overheard saying she was falsely accusing her father, James
Tran, of having molested her. Because the false statement was not necessary to the
issuance of the warrant, this complaint does not state a claim.
For these reasons, this case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
SO ORDERED on March 26, 2018
/s/JON E. DEGUILIO
JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5