UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

QUINTIN HOLMES, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CAUSE NO.: 3:13-CV-642-TLS

v. )

)

THOMAS STRAUSBERGER, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Quintin Holmes, a prisoner who is proceeding in this litigation pro se, filed an amended

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 [ECF No. 7]. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must

review a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a

claim, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. To survive

dismissal, a complaint must state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Bissessur v.

Indiana Univ. Bd. of Trs., 581 F.3d 599, 602–03 (7th Cir. 2009). “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.” Id. at 603. In other words, the 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) (emphasis in original). Nevertheless, the

court must bear in mind that a pro se complaint is entitled to liberal construction, “however

inartfully pleaded.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). 

Here, Holmes claims that three officers from the Fort Wayne Police Department violated

his constitutional rights. Specifically, he alleges that Sergeant Thomas Strausberger had a

vendetta against him based on a 2007 criminal case in which Holmes was convicted of criminal
recklessness after shooting at Sergeant Strausberger. Holmes claims that he served three years in

prison for this offense. He further claims that following his release, on September 30, 2010,

Officer David Klein stopped him for no reason, searched his pockets, and used excessive force

against him. He alleges that Officer Klein and Sergeant Strausberger then arrested him on a

“trumped up charge,” and that on the same date Officer Shane Pulver, acting in concert with the

other two officers, searched his home without a warrant or his consent. It is apparent from the

complaint that Holmes was convicted of some criminal offense based on these events,1 and is

presently incarcerated pursuant to that conviction. In this suit, he seeks $3 million in damages

against the three officers, among other relief.

The Fourth Amendment guarantees the “right of people to be secure in their persons,

houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. CONST . AMEND.

IV. Claims for false arrest, excessive force, unlawful search, and other Fourth Amendment

violations accrue at the time of the violation. Dominguez v. Hendley, 545 F.3d 585, 589 (7th Cir.

2008). In Indiana such claims must be brought within two years. Behavioral Inst. of Ind., LLC v.

Hobart City of Common Council, 406 F.3d 926, 929 (7th Cir. 2005). Although timeliness is an

affirmative defense, dismissal at the pleading stage is appropriate if the defense is apparent from

the complaint itself. See Walker v. Thompson, 288 F.3d 1005, 1010 (7th Cir. 2002). Here, it is

apparent from the Complaint that Holmes is complaining about an arrest that occurred in

September 2010, which was more than two years ago. His Fourth Amendment claims are

untimely and must be dismissed.

1 Attachments Holmes’s submits show that he was arrested on charges of dealing in cocaine, possession of

marijuana, and resisting law enforcement. (ECF No. 7 at 10-12.)

2
For the sake of completeness, the court notes that Holmes may also be trying to raise a

claim that he is being wrongfully incarcerated because of the officers’ actions, or that he was

given an unduly long sentence because of Sergeant Strausberger’s improper influence. These

claims would be barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994), because they rest

on a presumption that his conviction and sentence are invalid. The claims cannot be brought

unless and until his conviction is “reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order,

declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into

question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 486–87. 

For the reasons set forth above, this action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A.

SO ORDERED on August 13, 2013.

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

3