UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

LEROY HOUCHIN, II, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Case No. 3:15-CV-284-JVB

v. )

)

STATE OF INDIANA, )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Leroy Houchin, II, a pro se prisoner, filed a complaint seeking $1,500,000 from the State

of Indiana for incarcerating him on a conviction that should have been dismissed because the

evidence used against him was based on a warrantless search of his house. “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. 

The Eleventh Amendment generally precludes a citizen from suing a state or one of its

agencies or departments in federal court. Wynn v. Southward, 251 F.3d 588, 592 (7th Cir. 2001).

There are three exceptions to Eleventh Amendment immunity: (1) suits against state officials

seeking prospective equitable relief for ongoing violations of federal law are not barred by the

Eleventh Amendment; (2) individuals may sue a state directly if Congress has abrogated the

state’s immunity from suit; and (3) individuals may sue the state if the state waived its sovereign
immunity and consented to suit in federal court. MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Ill.

Commerce Comm’n, 183 F.3d 558, 563 (7th Cir. 1999). 

None of these exceptions to Eleventh Amendment immunity apply in this case. First,

Houchin is not suing a state official and is not seeking injunctive relief. Second, State immunity

was not abrogated by the enactment of Section 1983. Joseph v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Wis.

Sys., 432 F.3d 746, 748 (7th Cir. 2005). Third, Indiana has not consented to this lawsuit.

Therefore this case must be dismissed because the State of Indiana is immune from suit. 

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. Houchin cannot amend

to name either his State court trial judge nor the prosecuting attorney for not dismissing his

criminal case because they have absolute immunity. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 359

(1978), and Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976). Neither can he amend to seek

injunctive relief to overturn his criminal conviction because “habeas corpus is the exclusive

remedy for a state prisoner who challenges the fact or duration of his confinement and seeks

immediate or speedier release . . . .” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 481 (1994). Nor can he

amend to name the police officer whom he alleges illegally searched his house because he is

already suing that officer in a separate lawsuit. See Houchin v. Kosc. County, 3:15-cv-30 (N.D.

Ind. filed January 21, 2015). 

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

2
SO ORDERED on July 10, 2015.

 S/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen 

JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3