Indiana county prosecutor’s office was not subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
How later courts described this case
- Indiana county prosecutor’s office was not subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
MARCUS LaSHAWN PECK,
Plaintiff,
v. CAUSE NO. 3:24-CV-228 DRL-MGG
WILLIAM J. NELSON and MARION
COUNTY PROSECUTOR’s OFFICE,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Marcus LaShawn Peck, proceeding pro se, filed a motion asking the court to reconsider its order
denying his motion for leave to file in forma pauperis and dismissing his case under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e). “To prevail on a Rule 59(e) motion to amend judgment, a party must ‘clearly
establish’ (1) that the court committed a manifest error of law or fact, or (2) that newly discovered
evidence precluded entry of judgment.” Blue v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 698 F.3d 587, 598 (7th
Cir. 2012). Mr. Peck has established neither.
The court has already explained that Mr. Peck cannot sue Judge William J. Nelson because of
judicial immunity. Polzin v. Gage, 636 F.3d 834, 838 (7th Cir. 2011). Mr. Peck’s constitutional allegations
do not change the court’s prior analysis.
Similarly, Mr. Peck asks the court for leave to amend his complaint against the Marion County
Prosecutor’s Office to provide more specific allegations, but new allegations will not change the fact
that a prosecutor’s office is not a “person” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State
Police, 491 U.S. 58, 63 (1989); see also Jones v. Indiana, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60872, 5-6 (N.D. Ind. July
16, 2009) (Indiana county prosecutor’s office was not subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Nor will
new allegations impact the county prosecutor’s office’s entitlement to Eleventh Amendment
immunity. de Lima Silva v. Dep’t of Corr., 917 F.3d 546, 565 (7th Cir. 2019); Martin v. Noble Cnty. Sheriff’s
Dep’t, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1053, 67 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 4, 2021).
Nothing in Mr. Peck’s motion for reconsideration demonstrates an error of law or fact, so the
court DENIES his motion for reconsideration [8].
SO ORDERED.
April 23, 2024 s/ Damon R. Leichty
Judge, United States District Court