From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. Goldsmith

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
Mar 1, 1983
701 F.2d 603 (7th Cir. 1983)

Summary

noting that a claim is frivolous when "[a]ll the defendants are absolutely immune from suit"

Summary of this case from Corrigan v. Leavy

Opinion

No. 82-2526.

January 25, 1983. Opinion March 1, 1983.

This appeal was originally decided by unreported order on January 25, 1983. The Court has subsequently decided to issue the decision as an opinion.

Bill Williams, pro se.

Ronald D. Buckler, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, Ind., for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.

Before CUMMINGS, Chief Judge, and BAUER, Circuit Judge.



Plaintiff instituted a Section 1983 action in the district court based on an allegedly unconstitutional search and seizure. The district court denied plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis because his claims were frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). The defendants were Stephen Goldsmith, Marion County Prosecuting Attorney, his deputy, Ann Delaney; Judge John W. Tranberg, Marion County Superior Court, Criminal Division; Richard M. Givan, Roger D. DeBruler, Donald H. Hunter, Alfred J. Pivarnik and Dixon W. Prentice, Justices of the Indiana Supreme Court; Linley E. Pearson, Attorney General of Indiana, and Ronald D. Buckler, his deputy. Under the facts of this case, we conclude that all of these defendants are absolutely immune from suit. Butz v. Economov, 438 U.S. 478, 98 S.Ct. 2894, 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978); Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976).

Plaintiff has appealed the district court's decision and has filed a petition to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. All the defendants are absolutely immune from suit. Therefore, plaintiff's claim is frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is denied.

It is further ordered that this appeal is hereby dismissed for plaintiff's failure to pay the docketing fee of $65.00 to the clerk of the court pursuant to Circuit Rule 26(c).


Summaries of

Williams v. Goldsmith

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
Mar 1, 1983
701 F.2d 603 (7th Cir. 1983)

noting that a claim is frivolous when "[a]ll the defendants are absolutely immune from suit"

Summary of this case from Corrigan v. Leavy

In Williams v. Goldsmith, 701 F.2d 603 (7th Cir. 1983), a pro se plaintiff sought to initiate a § 1983 suit against county prosecutors, state judges, the Indiana Attorney General, and one of his deputies.

Summary of this case from Sellers v. Boyer

In Williams v. Goldsmith, 701 F.2d 603 (7th Cir. 1983), a pro se plaintiff sought to initiate a § 1983 suit against county prosecutors, state judges, the Indiana Attorney General, and one of his deputies.

Summary of this case from Agrawal v. Pallmeyer
Case details for

Williams v. Goldsmith

Case Details

Full title:BILL WILLIAMS, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. STEPHEN GOLDSMITH, ET…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

Date published: Mar 1, 1983

Citations

701 F.2d 603 (7th Cir. 1983)

Citing Cases

McKinney v. Oklahoma, Department of Human Services

accords judges not only the authority to dismiss a claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but…

Agrawal v. Pallmeyer

But, in any event, this defendant is immune from the sort of damage action Agrawal seeks to bring against…