The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
ELSOR MATTHEWS, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v. CAUSE NO. 1:23-CV-270-HAB-SLC
GRANT COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Elsor Matthews, Jr., a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a complaint alleging the
judge in his state court criminal case sentenced him incorrectly, the prosecutor brought
charges against him maliciously, his public defender was ineffective in defending him,
and two individuals conspired against him during the course of those proceedings. ECF
1. The court screened that complaint and dismissed it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
because he sued defendants who were immune from suit and because the complaint
did not state any viable claims upon which relief may be granted. ECF 5. Matthews has
filed a motion to correct error and amend his complaint in this closed case. ECF 8.
Whether viewed as a motion requesting leave to amend or construed as a request to
reconsider pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e),1 the result is the same—Matthews may not
proceed.
1 A motion for leave to amend may be denied if the amendment is futile. See e.g., Airborne Beepers
& Video, Inc. v. AT & T Mobility LLC, 499 F.3d 663, 666 (7th Cir. 2007). With regard to a motion to
reconsider, “[a] court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment if the movant
presents newly discovered evidence that was not available at the time of trial or if the movant points to
In his complaint, Matthews alleged that Judge Thomas R. Hunt, the presider in
his state court criminal case, denied him “333 days actual that I am entitled to.” ECF 1 at
2. He claimed the charges brought against him in that case and the sentence imposed on
March 18, 2005, were excessive due to the actions of prosecutor Lisa Glancy which he
describes as “malicious prosecution.” Id. He claimed his public defender, C. Robert
Rittman, was ineffective because he failed to properly investigate or properly defend
any of the charges. He alleged Bradford Kochanek and Carla Smith somehow conspired
against him with the other defendants to “commit reprisal and retaliate against
plaintiff.” Id. He claimed his trial was unfair. He sued the above defendants plus Grant
County for monetary damages, release from prison, and a new trial.
Matthews now argues that the problem with his state criminal conviction and
sentence wasn’t “just time” but also that it was applied to the “wrong court.” ECF 8 at 2.
However, as noted in the dismissal order, the defendants he named were either
immune from suit or not amenable to claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1983. See ECF 5 at 2–4.
With regard to any possible malicious prosecution claims, this court reviewed the state
court docket and noted that, “[d]espite multiple attempts including a direct appeal,
several post-conviction petitions, and requests for sentence modification, neither the
conviction nor sentence [in State v. Elsor Matthews, Jr., cause no. 27C01-0403-FB-000028
(filed Mar. 3, 2004)] have been disturbed.” Id. at 2, see also Elsor Matthews generally at
https://public.courts.in.gov/mycase (last visited July 24, 2023). In his current motion,
evidence in the record that clearly establishes a manifest error of law or fact.” Matter of Prince, 85 F.3d 314
(7th Cir. 1996); Deutsch v. Burlington N. R.R. Co., 983 F.2d 741 (7th Cir. 1993).
Matthews does not dispute this fact. Thus, any implied malicious prosecution claims
were properly dismissed, and an attempt to amend is futile unless the conviction is
overturned. See id. at 5; see also Crowder v. Barrett, no. 22-1899, 2023 WL 3145312, at *4
(7th Cir. Apr. 28, 2023) (“Finally, to the extent that [the plaintiff] intends to argue that he
was unfairly prosecuted, that argument must fail because his robbery charge ended in a
conviction that has not been overturned.”) (citing Thompson v. Clark, ––– U.S. ––––, 142
S. Ct. 1332, 1341 (2022). In sum, Matthews hasn’t provided any reason why this case
should be reopened.2
For these reasons, the motion (ECF 8) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED on July 25, 2023.
s/Holly A, Brady
CHIEF JUDGE HOLLY A, BRADY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 Matthews also references his separate habeas corpus case, Matthews v. Warden, cause no. 1:23-
CV-127-HAB-SLC (filed Mar. 20, 2023), and he asks the court to correct the error he made in sending
certain filings to this court rather than to the Court of Appeals. See id. at ECF 19 & ECF 20. However, the
court has already sent those filings to the Court of Appeals (see id. at ECF 21), so the request is denied as
moot. Moreover, in the future, Matthews is advised that he must file motions in the appropriate case
going forward—he cannot combine two different requests for relief into one motion, and each motion
must have the appropriate case number in the caption at the top of the page.