Williams v. Goldsmith, 82-2526
| Decision Date | 25 January 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-2526,82-2526 |
| Citation | 701 F.2d 603 |
| Parties | Bill WILLIAMS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Stephen GOLDSMITH, et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Bill Williams, pro se.
Ronald D. Buckler, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, Ind., for defendants-appellees.
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., Section 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. Sec. 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).
* This appeal was originally decided by unreported order on January 25, 1983. The Court has subsequently decided to issue the decision as an opinion.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Neitzke v. Williams
...Examples of the former class are claims against which it is clear that the defendants are immune from suit, see, e.g., Williams v. Goldsmith, 701 F.2d 603 (CA7 1983), and claims of infringement of a legal interest which clearly does not exist, like respondent Williams' claim that his transf......
-
Lewis v. Faulkner
...Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976); Green v. Warden, 699 F.2d 364, (7th Cir.1983); Williams v. Goldsmith, 701 F.2d 603 (7th Cir.1983). Even so, the general trend over the past several years has been one of a more expansive role on the part of the courts in ......
-
Walker v. Walker
...Examples of the former class are claims against which it is clear that the defendants are immune from suit, see, e.g., Williams v. Goldsmith, 701 F.2d 603 (7th Cir. 1983), and claims of infringement of a legal interest which clearly does not exist . . .Id. at 327. Accordingly, the Court may......
-
Williams v. Faulkner
...of Sec. 1915(d). One common example is a case in which it is clear that the defendants are immune from suit. See, e.g., Williams v. Goldsmith, 701 F.2d 603 (7th Cir.1983) (all defendants absolutely immune).6 Appellees' counsel argues on appeal that Williams' own submissions to the court est......