Stephens v. Elkhart Indiana County of Et Al - Document No. 4
Stephens v. Elkhart Indiana County of Et Al - Document No. 4
Stephens v. Elkhart Indiana County of Et Al - Document No. 4
4
case 3:07-cv-00393-RLM-CAN document 4 filed 08/29/2007 page 1 of 4
CHRISTOPHER J. STEPHENS, )
)
Plaintiff )
)
v. ) CAUSE NO. 3:07-CV-393 RM
)
ELKHART COUNTY, et al., )
)
Defendants )
officials violated his federally protected rights. The defendants are Elkhart County,
Elkhart Superior Court Judge Evan Roberts, the Elkhart County Commissioners,
suit at any time if the court determines that it is frivolous or malicious, fails to
state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a
basis either in law or in fact.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1989). See
also Flick v. Blevins, 887 F.2d 778, 780 (7th Cir. 1989). A claim based on an
at 32; Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). A claim is also frivolous when
no reasonable person could suppose it to have any merit. Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d.
Dockets.Justia.com
case 3:07-cv-00393-RLM-CAN document 4 filed 08/29/2007 page 2 of 4
Judge Roberts of the Elkhart Superior Court is presiding over a civil case
involving Mr. Stephens. Mr. Stephens alleges that Judge Roberts is a “ficticious
(sic) judge” because he “does not have his bond on file at the county recorders
officer.” (Complaint at p. 2). He further alleges that Judge Roberts has violated
Mr. Stephens’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights in five rulings he made
that defendant Roberts is not a judge because he does not have his bond on file
Whether Judge Roberts has properly met all of the qualifications to hold a
state judicial office is a matter of state law that must be determined by state
officials. “A federal court’s grant of relief against state officials on the basis of state
law . . . does not vindicate the supreme authority of federal law. On the contrary,
federal court instructs state officials on how to conform their conduct to state law.
Such a result conflicts directly with the principles of federalism that underlie the
Eleventh Amendment.” Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S.
89, 106 (1984). If Mr. Stephens wishes to have Judge Roberts removed from the
bench through a court order, he must seek that remedy in state court.
Accepting (as this court must until determined otherwise by a state court)
that Judge Roberts properly holds his judicial office, he is entitled to absolute
judicial immunity against Mr. Stephens’s damage claims if his actions meet a
two-part test: first, the acts must be within the judge’s jurisdiction; second, these
2
case 3:07-cv-00393-RLM-CAN document 4 filed 08/29/2007 page 3 of 4
acts must be performed in the judge’s judicial capacity. Judge Roberts had the
jurisdiction to preside over Mr. Stephens’s civil case and make the decisions Mr.
Stephens complains of. See John v. Barron, 897 F.2d 1387, 1392 (7th Cir. 1990),
cert. denied, 498 U.S. 821 (1990) (test is whether the acts are those normally
Mr. Stephens asserts that Elkhart County, the Elkhart County Commission,
and the individual County Commissioners are “responsible for Evan Roberts
actions through vicarious liability,” (Complaint at p. 2), and “are responsible for
all actions within the county by the county government.” (Complaint at p. 2). He
seeks damages from these defendants and asks the court to take various punitive
But “(j)udges of Indiana’s Circuit superior, and county courts are judicial
officers of the state judicial system; they are not county officials.” Pruitt v.
Kimbrough, 536 F.Supp. 764, 766 (N.D. Ind. 1982), citing State ex rel. McClure
v. Marion Superior Court, 158 N.E. 2d 264 (1959); State ex rel. Gibson v. Friedley,
34 N.E. 872 (1893); and State ex rel. Pittman v. Tucker, 46 Ind. 355 (1874).
Accordingly, Judge Roberts is not a county official. “Circuit superior and county
courts in Indiana are exclusively units of the judicial branch of the State’s
constitutional system; such courts are not units of county government.” Id. at
766. Accordingly, Elkhart County and its commissioners could in no way be held
3
case 3:07-cv-00393-RLM-CAN document 4 filed 08/29/2007 page 4 of 4
For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES the plaintiff’s motion to
proceed in forma pauperis (dockets # 2), and DISMISSES the complaint pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915e(2)(B)(ii).
SO ORDERED.