Huff v. Tabler

Filing 30

OPINION AND ORDER: The Court DENIES the motion for leave to amend 29 ; and DIRECTS the clerk to indicate that ECF 29 is a Proposed Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Philip P Simon on 9/13/2018. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(lhc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
MICHAEL ALLEN HUFF,
Plaintiff,
v.

CAUSE NO.: 3:18-CV-121-PPS-MGG

STEPHEN TABLER,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
Michael Allen Huff, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a proposed amended
complaint. At this stage of the proceedings, “a party may amend the party’s pleading
only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be
freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Because Huff did not
have leave to amend, I construe the proposed amended complaint as a motion for leave
to amend. “Reasons for finding that leave should not be granted include undue delay,
bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure
deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party
by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of amendment.” Airborne Beepers
& Video, Inc. v. AT & T Mobility LLC, 499 F.3d 663, 666 (7th Cir. 2007).
In the screening order, Huff, a pretrial detainee, was allowed to proceed on a
claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments against Jail Commander Tabler for
transferring him to the Starke County Jail. ECF 4. In the proposed amended complaint,
Huff reasserts these claims but further alleges that, when he returned from the Starke

County Jail, he was falsely accused of unlawfully possessing a razor. Tabler submitted a
probable cause affidavit based on this accusation, which resulted in criminal charges
against Huff in the Pulaski Circuit Court for trafficking with an inmate. These
allegations suggest an attempt to assert a claim of malicious prosecution against Tabler.
Malicious prosecution is a tort recognized under Indiana law, but the Indiana Tort
Claim Act does not allow such claims to proceed against governmental employees.
Serino v. Hensley, 735 F.3d 588, 595 (7th Cir. 2013); Ind. Code. § 34-13-3-3(6).
A claim of malicious prosecution may also be brought under federal law, but this
is rarely appropriate because “individuals do not have a federal right not to be
summoned into court and prosecuted without probable cause, under either the Fourth
Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment’s Procedural Due Process Clause.” Ray v.
City of Chicago, 629 F.3d 660, 664 (7th Cir. 2011). In other words, the act of malicious
prosecution alone does not violate a constitutional right. “[T]o state a viable malicious
prosecution claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege a violation of a particular
constitutional right, such as the right to be free from unlawful seizures under the Fourth
Amendment, or the right to a fair trial under the Due Process Clause.” Welton v.
Anderson, 770 F.3d 670, 673 (7th Cir. 2014).
The amended complaint does not indicate that the probable cause affidavit
extended Huff’s term of incarceration such that Huff could allege a violation of his
Fourth Amendment rights. The amended complaint also does not indicate that the
probable cause affidavit resulted in an unfair trial in violation of the Due Process
Clause. Nor does Huff allege that the malicious prosecution caused any other
2

constitutional violation. Because Huff does not identify how the false probable cause
affidavit violated his constitutional rights, the allegations relating to the probable cause
affidavit do not state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
In the amended complaint, Huff also adds that Tabler provided false testimony
at the trial on the criminal charge. However, witnesses have absolute immunity from
civil liability for testimony given at trial. Brisco v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 345-46 (1983);
Curtis v. Bembenek, 48 F.3d 281, 283-85 (7th Cir. 1995). Therefore, Huff cannot proceed on
the allegations relating to Tabler’s testimony at trial.
For these reasons, the court:
(1) DENIES the motion for leave to amend (ECF 29); and
(2) DIRECTS the clerk to indicate that ECF 29 is a Proposed Amended
Complaint.
SO ORDERED on September 13, 2018.
s/ Philip P. Simon
JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3