Duke v. Trueblood
Filing
4
OPINION AND ORDER dismissing this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 06/24/13. (cc: plaintiff)(ksp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION AT LAFAYETTE
REX A. DUKE, SR.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MICHAEL TRUEBLOOD,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
NO. 4:13-CV-040
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a complaint filed pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Rex A. Duke, Sr., a pro se prisoner on June
17, 2013. (DE # 1.) For the reasons set forth below, this case is
DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
BACKGROUND
The complaint is not a model of clarity, but it can be
discerned that Rex A. Duke, Sr., is a pretrial detainee at the
Tippecanoe County Jail. He is suing his public defender, Michael
Trueblood, because he believes Trueblood is not doing a good job
representing him in his criminal case. Duke seeks a “monetary
settlement” and for Trueblood to be removed from the case, among
other relief.
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court must review 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (b). In determining whether the
complaint states a claim, the Court applies the same standard as
when deciding a motion to dismiss under FEDERAL RULE
OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE
12(b)(6). Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir.
2006). To survive dismissal, a complaint must state a claim for
relief that is plausible on its face. Bissessur v. Indiana Univ.
Bd. of Trs., 581 F.3d 599, 602-03 (7th Cir. 2009). “A claim has
facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that
allows
the
court
to
draw
the
reasonable
inference
that
the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 603. The
Court must bear in mind, however, that “[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).
Duke’s claim against his public defender cannot proceed,
because he is not a state actor who can be sued for constitutional
violations. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981) (“[A]
public
defender
does
not
act
under
2
color
of
state
law
when
performing
a
lawyer’s
traditional
functions
as
counsel
to
a
defendant in a criminal proceeding.”). Nor does this Court have
authority to order Trueblood to be removed, or to otherwise
interfere with the pending criminal case. See Younger v. Harris,
401 U.S. 37, 53 (1971); In re Campbell, 264 F.3d 730, 731 (7th Cir.
2001). Duke may have some remedy available in the Indiana courts to
obtain new counsel, but he does not have a remedy in this Court
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, this case is DISMISSED
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
DATED:
June 24, 2013
/s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United States District Court
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?