BAKER v. YOUNG et al

Filing 7

Entry Discussing Filing Fee and Screening the Complaint - Mr. Baker shall have through August 17, 2015, in which to show cause why this action should not be dismissed because each of the claims alleged is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Copy Mailed **SEE ENTRY**. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 7/21/2015.(MGG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
ANTWAN BAKER,1

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
DALE YOUNG detective, BRIMER detective, )
DINGS detective, SORIA detective,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. 1:15-cv-00793-TWP-DML

Entry Discussing Filing Fee and Screening the Complaint
I. Filing Fee
Although the initial partial filing fee associated with this action has not been paid, Plaintiff
Antwan Baker’s response to the Order to Show cause reflects that he has made efforts to have the
fee transmitted from his inmate trust account to the Clerk of the Court. Mr. Baker should continue
his efforts to pay the filing fee.
II. The Complaint
Mr. Baker, an inmate at the Miami Correctional Facility, filed this civil action on May 20,
2015, against four law enforcement officers based on events which occurred in Hendricks County
in 2012.
Mr. Baker is suing the defendants who are Marion County Police Department Detectives
for arresting him in Hendricks County, which Baker asserts is “outside of their jurisdiction.” Dkt.
1 at 3. Baker alleges that the defendants admitted placing a GPS tracking unit on his vehicle

1

The Department of Correction’s website reflects that the plaintiff’s first name is “Antwan” not “Antwaun.”
The clerk is directed to update the docket accordingly.

without a warrant to track his vehicle’s movements in June 2012. He was arrested on June 20,
2012. At that time, he consented to the search of his home under duress.
Mr. Baker further alleges that the defendants’ actions lead to his current conviction. Mr.
Baker pled guilty, but would not have if he had known that his arrest and the evidence found when
he was arrested was illegally obtained and would have been inadmissible. Mr. Baker asks this
Court to issue a written reprimand to the defendants. He also seeks Five Hundred Thousand Dollars
to compensate him for emotional distress and pain and suffering.
II. Screening
The complaint is now subject to the screening requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). This
statute directs that the court dismiss a complaint or any claim within a complaint which “(1) is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id.
The complaint is necessarily brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state a claim under
§ 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the
United States and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under
color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Suits under § 1983 use the statute of
limitations and tolling rules that states employ for personal-injury claims. In Indiana, the applicable
statute of limitations period is two years. See Richards v. Mitcheff, 696 F.3d 635, 637 (7th Cir.
2012); Ind. Code § 34–11–2–4.
This action was signed on May 18, 2015, after the expiration of Indiana’s 2-year statute of
limitations, with Mr. Baker’s claims having accrued by no later than January 15, 2013, when he
was sentenced in 49G20-1206-FA-042191 for dealing in cocaine or narcotic drugs. It is more
likely, however, that his claims accrued even earlier on June 20, 2012, when he was arrested and

learned that the tracking device had been placed on his car without a warrant. In any event, even
giving Mr. Baker all benefit of the doubt, he filed this action more than two years after his claims
accrued.
“It is, of course, ‘irregular’ to dismiss a claim as untimely under Rule 12(b)(6). . . .
However, . . . dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) on the basis of a limitations defense may be
appropriate when the plaintiff effectively pleads [himself] out of court by alleging facts that are
sufficient to establish the defense.” Hollander v. Brown, 457 F.3d 688, 691 n.1 (7th Cir. 2006)
(internal citations omitted); see also Koch v. Gregory, 536 Fed. Appx. 659 (7th Cir. 2013) (stating
that when the language of the complaint plainly shows that the statute of limitations bars the suit,
dismissal under § 1915A is appropriate); Brownmark Films, LLC v. Comedy Partners, 682 F.3d
687, 690 (7th Cir. 2012).
Mr. Baker shall have through August 17, 2015, in which to show cause why this action
should not be dismissed because each of the claims alleged is barred by the applicable statute of
limitations.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

7/21/2015
Date: __________________

Distribution:
ANTWAUN BAKER
DOC # 231028
MIAMI - CF
MIAMI CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Inmate Mail/Parcels
3038 West 850 South
BUNKER HILL, IN 46914