UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

JOSEPH THOMAS WAYER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 3:15-cv-00065-PPS 

)

ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, INDIANA, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Joseph Thomas Wayer was convicted of murdering his ex-wife. Wayer v. State, 20

N.E. 3d 608 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (table); Wayer v. State, No. 71A03-1310-CR-415, 2014

Ind. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1248, at *5 (Ind. Ct. App. Sept. 18, 2014). The only physical

evidence connecting him to the crime scene were two hairs found on the victim. Id. (and

Complaint at 4 and 5, DE 1). Detective Galen Pelletier investigated the crime. He took

buccal swabs and two strands of Wayer’s hair. The swabs were sent to the crime lab,

but the hair samples disappeared. Wayer alleges that Detective Pelletier manufactured

the evidence necessary to convict him by intentionally placing those hair samples with

ones collected from the victim’s body – thereby making it look like Wayer had been at

the scene of the crime. In this case, Wayer is suing Detective Pelletier, his supervisor

Detective Tim Corbett, and his employer St. Joseph County. Wayer is not seeking to

overturn his conviction with this case, but rather is suing for damages based on a

number of theories including constitutional violations, false imprisonment, slander, and

mental and physical anguish.
Wayer is a prisoner and he filed this case pro se. “A document filed pro se is to be

liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to

less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus,

551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Nevertheless, pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915A, I must review the merits of cases filed by prisoners. 

This complaint has one critical problem: in order for Wayer to win this case for

damages, he has to prove that he was convicted using fraudulent evidence. Doing this

would undermine his conviction. However, in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87

(1994), the Supreme Court explained that “in order to recover damages for allegedly

unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions

whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff

must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal,

expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make

such a determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of

habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.” Here, Wayer filed this case from the Indiana State

Prison. He states that he was convicted and makes no mention of his conviction having

been overturned in any way. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. 

Wayer v. State, No. 71A03-1310-CR-415, 2014 Ind. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1248 (Ind. Ct.

App. Sept. 18, 2014). Based on this complaint, it would not be plausible for me to

conclude that Wayer was not now being held on this conviction. Thus, Wayer may not

proceed on these claims at this time. Nevertheless, if his conviction has been set aside

2
somehow, he needs to file an amended complaint providing that additional

information. See Luevano v. Wal-Mart, 722 F.3d 1014, 1023 (7th Cir. 2013) (“District courts

must allow IFP plaintiffs leave to amend at least once in all circumstances in which such

leave would be granted to fee-paying plaintiffs under Rule 15(a).”). 

For the foregoing reasons, the court: (1) DISMISSES this complaint WITHOUT

PREJUDICE; (2) GRANTS Joseph Thomas Wayer until June 30, 2015, to file an

amended complaint; and (3) CAUTIONS Joseph Thomas Wayer that if he does not

respond by that deadline, final judgment will be entered against him in this case. 

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: May 27, 2015

/s/ Philip P. Simon

CHIEF JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

3