United States District Court

Northern District of Indiana

SCOTT R. BLEVINS,

Plaintiff, 

 Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-8 JVB

v.

NICHOLAS L. HADDEN, 

Defendant. 

OPINION AND ORDER

Scott R. Blevins, a plaintiff proceeding pro se, filed a complaint alleging a violation of

42 U.S.C. § 1983. (DE 1.) He also moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (DE 2.) Under

the in forma pauperis statute, the Court must screen the complaint prior to service on the

defendant, and must 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. § 1915(e)(2)(B). In determining whether the complaint states a claim, the

court applies the same standard as when addressing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir. 2006). To

survive dismissal,

[the] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a

claim to relief that is plausible on its face. 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.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Thus, a

“plaintiff must do better than putting a few words on paper that, in the hands of an imaginative

reader, might suggest that something has happened to her that might be redressed by the law.”

Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 403 (7th Cir. 2010).

case 3:13-cv-00008-JVB-CAN document 3 filed 01/24/13 page 1 of 3
This Complaint is not a model of clarity, but it discloses at least that Blevins is suing

Nicholas A. Hadden, an attorney in Vermont family court prosecuting a child-support case

against Blevins.1

 Blevins claims Hadden has acted improperly in that case by, among other

things, filing motions that interfered with his parental rights and interrupting him during court

proceedings. Among other relief, he requests that this Court take disciplinary action against

Hadden or have Hadden removed from his case.

 This claim cannot be permitted to proceed, because Hadden enjoys absolute immunity for

his actions in initiating and prosecuting the child support case. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S.

409, 410 (1976) (“In initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State’s case, the prosecutor is

immune from a civil suit for damages under § 1983.”). Furthermore, to the extent Blevins is

attempting to challenge an order entered in the Vermont case pursuant to a motion filed by

Hadden, he is precluded from doing so under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Gilbert v. Ill. Bd. of

Educ., 591 F.3d 896, 900 (7th Cir. 2010). That doctrine “prevents a state-court loser from

bringing suit in federal court in order effectively to set aside the state-court judgment,” and it

applies “even though the state court judgment might be erroneous or even unconstitutional.” Id.

(quotation marks and citation omitted). If Blevins believes his rights were violated in the

Vermont court proceeding, he may have a right to appeal in the courts of that state, but this Court

lacks the authority to review or reverse its orders. Id. This Court also lacks the power to order

that Hadden be removed as the prosecutor or to otherwise interfere with the state case. See In re

Campbell, 264 F.3d 730, 731 (7th Cir. 2001).

1 On the same day Blevins filed this case, he filed a separate suit against the judge

presiding over the child support case. See Blevins v. Maley, No. 3:13-CV-9-PS (N.D. Ind. filed

Jan. 3, 2013). 

2

case 3:13-cv-00008-JVB-CAN document 3 filed 01/24/13 page 2 of 3
For these reasons, the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (DE 2) is DENIED

and the Complaint (DE 1) is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

SO ORDERED on January 24, 2013.

 s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen 

JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

case 3:13-cv-00008-JVB-CAN document 3 filed 01/24/13 page 3 of 3