United States District Court

Northern District of Indiana

MAURICE KNIGHT, SR., )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Civil Action No. 1:15-CV-302 JVB

v. )

)

DEANNA FOREMAN, et al. )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Maurice Knight, Sr., a pro se prisoner, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for

money damages against Deanna Foreman, a witness who initially accused Knight of theft, but

later recanted her accusation, and Bill Heck, the Grant County Prosecutor, who charged Knight

with a crime even though Foreman recanted her accusation. (DE 2.) “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, the court must review the merits of a prisoner complaint and 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. 

Here, the claim for money damages against Bill Heck, the Grant County Prosecutor must

be dismissed because he has immunity. “[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). “[A]bsolute immunity shields prosecutors even if they act

maliciously, unreasonably, without probable cause, or even on the basis of false testimony or
evidence.” Smith v. Power, 346 F.3d 740, 742 (7th Cir. 2003) (quotation marks and citation

omitted). Charging Knight with a crime, even if based on Foreman’s recanted testimony, is a part

of initiating a prosecution. Therefore, the prosecutor is immune from suit. 

Knight’s claim against Deanna Foreman fares no better. “In order to state a claim under §

1983 a plaintiff must allege: (1) that defendants deprived him of a federal constitutional right;

and (2) that the defendants acted under color of state law.” Savory v. Lyons, 469 F.3d 667, 670

(7th Cir. 2006). A private individual such as Foreman is not a state actor that can be sued for

constitutional violations. See Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1004 (1982); Savory v. Lyons, 469

F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir. 2006). The fact that Foreman reported a crime to the police does not

change that fact, even if that report was false. Brokaw v. Mercer County, 235 F.3d 1000, 1016

(7th Cir. 2000) (citing Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149 (1978). Accordingly, Foreman

must be dismissed from this case.

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. No amendment could

overcome the immunity of Prosecutor Bill Heck or the fact that Deanna Foreman is not a state

actor. 

For these reasons, this case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

SO ORDERED on December 16, 2015.

 s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen 

Joseph S. Van Bokkelen

United States District Judge

Hammond Division