Court of Appeals of Indiana |Mem. Dec. on Rehearing 49A05-1602-CT-425 | December 6, 2016 Page 1 of 3

MEMORANDUM DECISION

ON REHEARING

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of 

establishing the defense of res judicata, 

collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

APPELLANT PRO SE

Charles Sweeney

Carlisle, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES 

Gregory F. Zoeller 

Attorney General of Indiana 

Andrea E. Rahman 

Deputy Attorney General 

Indianapolis, Indiana.

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Charles Sweeney,

Appellant-Plaintiff, 

v. 

David C. Long, President Pro 

Tempore, Indiana General 

Assembly, et al., 

Appellees-Defendants. 

December 6, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A05-1602-CT-425 

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court.

The Honorable Gary L. Miller, 

Judge.

Trial Court Cause No.

49D03-1510-CT-33234 

Friedlander, Senior Judge
Court of Appeals of Indiana |Mem. Dec. on Rehearing 49A05-1602-CT-425 | December 6, 2016 Page 2 of 3

[1] We grant rehearing for the limited purpose of clarifying the original decision in 

this matter. We therefore grant Sweeney’s petition for this limited purpose, but 

otherwise reaffirm the decision reached in our original opinion. 

[2] Sweeney alleged he was entitled to prospective (injunctive) relief under 42 

U.S.C. §1983, and named Senator David C. Long, President Pro Tempore of 

the Indiana Senate, and the Indiana General Assembly as defendants. With 

respect to prospective (injunctive) relief, the United States Supreme Court 

observed in Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 S. Ct. 2304, 

2312, 105 L. Ed. 2d 45 n.10 (1989), that “[o]f course a state official in his or her 

official capacity, when sued for injunctive relief, would be a person under § 

1983 because ‘official-capacity actions for prospective relief are not treated as 

actions against the State.’” Regardless of the relief requested, however, a state 

or state agency may not be sued under § 1983. City of Warsaw v. Orban, 884 

N.E.2d 262 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. 

[3] Sweeney’s complaint was properly dismissed as to the named defendants. The 

Indiana General Assembly, a branch of state government, could not be sued 

under § 1983. Senator Long, although a “person” for purposes of § 1983 with 

respect to prospective relief only, was entitled to dismissal because Sweeney did 

not state a claim upon which relief could be granted. A § 1983 claim need only 

allege that a person has deprived the claimant of a federal right while that 

person was acting under color of state or territorial law. Thornton v. State, 43 

N.E.3d 585 (Ind. 2015). Sweeney has not met even this low bar as to Senator 

Long, alleging only that the Indiana General Assembly has failed to act or 
Court of Appeals of Indiana |Mem. Dec. on Rehearing 49A05-1602-CT-425 | December 6, 2016 Page 3 of 3

respond to his requests that Indiana Code section 35-33-10-5 be repealed. 

Sweeney has not identified how Senator Long has deprived Sweeney of a 

federal right while acting in his official capacity. 

Mathias, J., and Barnes, J., concur.