IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

CARTIER D. TASBY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CAUSE NO. 1:15-CV-180

)

RODNEY FAULK, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the complaint filed by

Plaintiff, Cartier D. Tasby, a pro se prisoner, on July 10, 2015.

(DE 1.) For the reasons set forth below, the court DISMISSES this

case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) because both Rodney

L. Faulk and Shannon K. Wright have prosecutorial immunity. 

DISCUSSION

In this case, Tasby sues Rodney Faulk and Shannon Wright, both

Grant County prosecuting attorneys. Tasby alleges these prosecutors

are each separately prosecuting cases against him for the same

offense, subjecting him to double jeopardy. Tasby seeks money

damages against both prosecutors and also requests the court to

intervene in his ongoing state court prosecutions.

Tasby cannot recover money damages against either prosecutor

in this case. “[I]n initiating a prosecution and in presenting the

State’s case, the prosecutor is immune from a civil suit for

damages under § 1983.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431
(1976). “Absolute immunity shields prosecutors even if they act

maliciously, unreasonably, without probable cause, or even on the

basis of false testimony or evidence.” Cooper v. Parrish, 203 F.3d

937, 947 (6th Cir. 2000) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

Moreover, claims for defamation are not actionable under § 1983.

See Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 712 (1976) (“[W]e hold that the

interest in reputation asserted in this case is neither ‘liberty’

nor ‘property’ guaranteed against state deprivation without due

process of law.”)

Nor can Tasby have this court intervene in his criminal cases

pending in the State of Indiana. To the extent Tasby is attempting

to have his conviction invalidated or otherwise obtain release from

prison, he must pursue such relief in a habeas proceeding under 28

U.S.C. § 2254, subject to the requirements of the Anti-Terrorism

and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254; Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 488 (1973) (habeas

corpus is the exclusive remedy for a state prisoner who challenges

the fact or duration of his confinement).

Though it is usually necessary to permit a plaintiff the

opportunity to file an amended complaint when a case is dismissed

sua sponte, see Luevano v. Wal-Mart, 722 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir. 2013),

that is unnecessary where the amendment would be futile. Hukic v.

Aurora Loan Servs., 588 F.3d 420, 432 (7th Cir. 2009) (“[C]ourts

have broad discretion to deny leave to amend where . . . the

amendment would be futile.”) Such is the case here because no
amendment could cure the fact that Tasby cannot obtain any relief

in a lawsuit against these Grant County prosecutors. Therefore

this case must be dismissed. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DISMISSES this case

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) because Rodney Faulk and

Shannon Wright have prosecutorial immunity. 

DATED: September 1, 2015 /s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge

United State District Court