Dooley v. Troyer et al

Filing 12

OPINION AND ORDER: The complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 3/26/18. (Copy mailed to pro se party). (nal)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
DORRIS L. Y. DOOLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.

CAUSE NO.: 3:18-CV-202-RLM-MGG

MICHELLE TROYER, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Dorris L. Y. Dooley, a prisoner without a lawyer, has filed a complaint
against Michelle Troyer, Callie Daniels, and the Elkhart County Superior Court.
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).
The court must review the complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who
is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. “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).
Ms. Dooley alleges that, on July 7, 2015, the Elkhart County Superior
Court removed her from the county’s work release program based on fabricated
reports from Callie Daniels and Michelle Troyer, who supervised Ms. Dooley on
work release. As a result, Ms. Dooley seeks money damages. Ms. Dooley’s claims

are subject to a two-year statute of limitations. See Behavioral Inst. of Ind., LLC
v. Hobart City of Common Council, 406 F.3d 926, 929 (7th Cir. 2005). Although
the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, dismissal is appropriate where
the complaint makes clear that the claims are time barred. Cancer Foundation,
Inc. v. Cerberus Capital Management, LP, 559 F.3d 671, 674 (7th Cir. 2009). The
complaint focuses on Ms. Dooley’s removal from a work release program, which
occurred on July 7, 2015. The statute of limitations thus expired two years later
on July 7, 2017. Ms. Dooley didn’t mail the complaint until November 16, 2017.
The complaint must be dismissed as untimely.
Though it is usually necessary “to give pro se litigants one opportunity to
amend after dismissing a complaint[,] that’s unnecessary when, 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, 633 Fed. Appx.
436, 438 (7th Cir. 2016); Barry Aviation Inc. v. Land O’Lakes Mun. Airport
Comm’n, 377 F.3d 682, 687 (7th Cir. 2004); 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, the complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
SO ORDERED on March 26, 2018
/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr.
JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2