Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 133 views

    Treesh v. Lautrec LTD Et Al - Document No. 3

    Uploaded by

    Justia.com
    OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by William Lee Treesh and DISMISSING case pursuant to 28:1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 10/26/06. (jcp) 1:2006cv00345 Indiana Northern District Court

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Treesh v. Lautrec LTD Et Al - Document No. 3

    Uploaded by

    Justia.com
    133 views3 pages
    OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by William Lee Treesh and DISMISSING case pursuant to 28:1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 10/26/06. (jcp) 1:2006cv00345 Indiana Northern District Court

    Original Title

    Treesh v. Lautrec Ltd et al - Document No. 3

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by William Lee Treesh and DISMISSING case pursuant to 28:1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 10/26/06. (jcp) 1:2006cv00345 Indiana Northern District Court

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    133 views3 pages

    Treesh v. Lautrec LTD Et Al - Document No. 3

    Uploaded by

    Justia.com
    OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by William Lee Treesh and DISMISSING case pursuant to 28:1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 10/26/06. (jcp) 1:2006cv00345 Indiana Northern District Court

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    Treesh v. Lautrec Ltd et al Doc.

    3
    case 1:06-cv-00345-RL-RBC document 3 filed 10/26/2006 page 1 of 3

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


    FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
    FORT WAYNE DIVISION

    WILLIAM LEE TREESH, )


    )
    Plaintiff, )
    )
    vs. ) CAUSE NO. 1:06-CV-345
    )
    LAUTREC, LTD. et al., )
    )
    Defendants. )

    OPINION AND ORDER

    This matter is before the court on the Application to Proceed

    Without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit, filed by William Lee

    Treesh on October 17. 2006. For the reasons set forth below, the

    Court DENIES the application and DISMISSES this case pursuant to 28

    U.S.C. section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

    BACKGROUND

    William Lee Treesh ("Treesh"), a pro se plaintiff, submitted

    a complaint under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. Treesh alleges that

    Lautrec, Ltd., its Vice President Gary Griglak, its District

    Manager Carol Martin, and its Manager Wendy McCoy violated his

    constitutional rights to freedom of speech and freedom of the

    press.

    Dockets.Justia.com
    case 1:06-cv-00345-RL-RBC document 3 filed 10/26/2006 page 2 of 3

    DISCUSSION

    Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion


    thereof, that may have been paid, the court
    shall dismiss the case at any time if the
    court determines that . . . the action . . .
    fails to state a claim on which relief may be
    granted.

    28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

    42 U.S.C. section 1983 provides a private right of action to

    redress the deprivation of a constitutional right by a state actor.

    In order to state a cause of action under 42


    U.S.C. § 1983, the Supreme Court requires only
    two elements: First, the plaintiff must
    allege that some person has deprived him of a
    federal right. Second, he must allege that the
    person who has deprived him of the right acted
    under color of state law.

    Alvarado v. Litscher, 267 F.3d 648, 651 (7th Cir. 2001) (citations,

    quotation marks and ellipsis omitted).

    For the individual defendants to act “under


    color of state law” for § 1983 purposes means
    to misuse power, possessed by virtue of state
    law and made possible only because the
    wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of
    state law. As a result, acts by a state
    officer are not made under color of state law
    unless they are related in some way to the
    performance of the duties of the state office.

    Thurman v. Village of Homewood, 446 F.3d 682, 687 (7th Cir. 2006)

    (quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted). Here, none of

    Defendants are state officers; they are a private company and its

    employees. None of their power or authority was derived from state

    law and nothing they did was done in the performance of an official

    office. Neither were they federal employees or acting pursuant to

    -2-
    case 1:06-cv-00345-RL-RBC document 3 filed 10/26/2006 page 3 of 3

    federal law. Therefore these Defendants could not have violated

    either section 1983 or his constitutional rights. Though Treesh may

    have disagreements with these Defendants, those conflicts are not

    adjudicable in this case.

    CONCLUSION

    For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES the

    application for in forma pauperis status and DISMISSES this case

    pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

    DATED: October 26, 2006 /s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge


    United States District Court

    -3-

    You might also like