Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Bill Williams v. Stephen Goldsmith

Bill Williams v. Stephen Goldsmith, 701 F.2d 603 (7th Cir. 1983)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1983-03-01
Topic
bankruptcy

How later courts describe this case

  • noting that a claim is frivolous when “[a]ll the defendants are absolutely immune from suit”
  • civil rights action based on alleged unconstitutional search and seizure was frivolous where all defendants were absolutely immune from suit
  • “All the defendants are absolutely immune from suit. Therefore, plaintiff's claim is frivolous.”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Bill Williams v. Stephen Goldsmith. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
19 opinions
WILLIAMS v. GOLDSMITH,701 F.2d 603(7th Cir. 1983)
BILL WILLIAMS, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. STEPHEN GOLDSMITH, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
No. 82-2526.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
January 25, 1983.fn*
Opinion March 1, 1983.
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.
PER CURIAM.
[1] 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 proceedin formapauperisbecause 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.Page 604Pivarnik 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).

[2] Plaintiff has appealed the district court's decision and has filed a petition to proceed on appealin 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 appealin formapauperisis denied.

[3] 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).
  1. This appeal was originally decided by unreported order on January 25, 1983. The Court has subsequently decided to issue the decision as an opinion. ↩