SEELEY v. FAYETTE CIRCUIT/SUPERIOR COURTS et al

Filing 17

ENTRY - The complaint fails to survive the screening process. Dismissal of the action is now mandatory. Seeley's request for the issuance of subpoenas 16 is denied. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 4/3/2013. Copy Mailed.(JD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOIS DIVISION

C. WAYNE SEELEY, III,
Plaintiff,
v.
FAYETTE CIRCUIT/SUPERIOR
COURTS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
) Case No. 1:13-cv-0136-TWP-DML
)
)
)
)
)

Entry and Order Dismissing Action
Plaintiff C. Wayne Seeley, III, is a “prisoner” as that term is defined in 28 U.S.C. §
1915(h). Seeley now seeks damages from what he has characterized as his wrongful
conviction(s) entered in Fayette County, Indiana. He has named as defendants (a) the
trial judge, and (b) three prosecutors in the case. Seeley’s complaint is subject to the
screening requirement of 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A(b). Pursuant to this statute, “[a] complaint
is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim if the allegations, taken as true, show
that plaintiff is not entitled to relief.” Jones v. Bock, 127 S. Ct. 910, 921 (2007).
Applying the foregoing standard, Mr. Seeley’s action must be dismissed because
his complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. This conclusion
rests on the absolute immunity from an action for damages against the defendant judge,
because the trial judge enjoys judicial immunity from liability of any nature based on the
conduct alleged or imputed to him. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991). Judicial
immunity can only be overcome in two circumstances: (1) when the actions were not
taken in the judge’s official capacity; or (2) if the action is taken in complete lack of

jurisdiction. Additionally, immunity exists for the defendant prosecutors for the conduct
attributed to them in this case. See Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 261-62 (2006);
Anderson v. Simon, 217 F.3d 472, 475 (7th Cir. 2000).
A[A] complaint must always . . . allege >enough facts to state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face.=” Limestone Development Corp. v. Village of Lemont, Ill., 520
F.3d 797, 803 (7th Cir. 2008) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955,
1974 (2007)). Plausibility is defeated, however, if a plaintiff pleads himself out of court.
That is what has occurred here.
For the reasons explained above, therefore, the complaint fails to survive the
screening required by ' 1915A because it fails to contain a legally viable claim against
the defendants. Dismissal of the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A(b) is now
mandatory, Gladney v. Pendleton Corr. Facility, 302 F.3d 773, 775 (7th Cir. 2002), and
judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. Seeley’s request for the issuance of
subpoenas [16] is denied.
Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

04/03/2013
Date: __________________

Distribution:
C. WAYNE SEELEY, III
142081
FAYETTE COUNTY JAIL
123 W. 4th Street
Connersville, IN 4733

________________________
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana