Hart v. Mannina

6 Citing cases

  1. Goudy v. Cummings

    1:12-cv-00161-SEB-TAB (S.D. Ind. Sep. 30, 2013)   Cited 3 times

    This issue has been addressed by our colleagues in this District on a few recent occasions and they have uniformly found the argument advanced by Mr. Goudy "without merit as the 'existence of immunity for certain types of claims does not render a State law remedy constitutionally defective." Serino v. Hensley, No. 3:12-cv-40-RLY-WGH, 2012 WL 6025751, at *4 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 4, 2012) (quoting Hart v. Mannina, No. 1:10-cv-1691-WTL-MJD, 2012 WL 188055, at *6 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 23, 2012)); accord Julian v. Hanna, No. 1:11-cv-1536-TWP-DML, 2013 WL 64516, at *4 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 4, 2013). See also Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 342 (1986) (Stevens, J., concurring) ("[T]he mere fact that a State elects to provide some of its agents with a sovereign immunity defense in certain cases does not justify the conclusion that its remedial system is constitutionally inadequate.").

  2. Welton v. Anderson

    1:13-cv-00355-JMS-MJD (S.D. Ind. Sep. 19, 2013)

    In so holding, the Court aligns with several other Courts in this district that, albeit for differing reasons, have held the same. See Julian v. Hanna, 2013 WL 64516, at *4 (S.D. Ind. 2013); Serino v. Hensley, 2012 WL 6025751, at *4 (S.D. Ind. 2012); Hart v. Mannina, 2012 WL 188055, at *6-7 (S.D. Ind. 2012); Alexander, 2011 WL 4833091, at *3; Bishop v. City of Indianapolis, 2008 WL 820188, at *13-14 (S.D. Ind. 2008); Hawkins, 2005 WL 2100068, at *2.

  3. Julian v. Hanna

    No. 1:11-cv-01536-TWP-DML (S.D. Ind. Jan. 4, 2013)   Cited 2 times

    Other courts in this District have held that such arguments are "without merit as the 'existence of immunity for certain types of claims does not render a State law remedy constitutionally defective." Serino, 2012 WL 6025751, at *4 (quoting Hart v. Mannina, No. 1:10-CV-1691-WTL-MJD, 2012 WL 188055, at *6 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 23, 2012)). See Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 342 (1986) (Stevens, J., concurring) (stating that "the mere fact that a State elects to provide some of its agents with a sovereign immunity defense in certain cases does not justify the conclusion that its remedial system is constitutionally inadequate").

  4. Serino v. Hensley

    3:12-cv-40-RLY-WGH (S.D. Ind. Dec. 4, 2012)   Cited 6 times

    See Butt v. McEvoy, 669 N.E.2d 1015, 1017 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (listing the elements for malicious prosecution under Indiana law). Because this state law remedy exists, "due process of law is afforded by the opportunity to pursue a claim in state court." Hart v. Mannina, 1:10-cv-1691, 2012 WL 188055, at *6 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 23, 2012) (citing Newsome, 256 F.3d at 751); see also Paige v. City of Fort Wayne, 1:09-cv-143, 2010 WL 3522526, n.8 (N.D. Ind. Sept. 2, 2010) (stating defendant had no viable claim under Section 1983 because malicious prosecution is not a constitutional tort if state law provides a remedy for malicious prosecution and Indiana recognized such a claim). Thus, no constitutional claim for malicious prosecution exists.

  5. Vidal v. Cassidy

    1:11-cv-1284-JMS-TAB (S.D. Ind. Aug. 17, 2012)

    Defendants also seek to dismiss Plaintiffs' Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment U.S. constitutional claims for malicious prosecution and abuse of process against Cassidy. [Docket No. 18 at 10.] Even assuming "that some of the interests granted historical protection by the common law of torts (such as . . . malicious prosecution) are protected by the Due Process Clause[,] . . . a state actor's random and unauthorized deprivation of that interest cannot be challenged under 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 so long as the State provides an adequate postdeprivation remedy." Hart v. Mannina, No. 1:10-CV-1691-WTL-MJD, 2012 WL 188055, at *6 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 23, 2012) (quoting Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 283-84 (1994)). Indiana recognizes claims for malicious prosecution and abuse of process.

  6. Patton v. Kingery

    3:11-cv-115-WGH-WTL (S.D. Ind. Jul. 12, 2012)

    See Alexander v. F.B.I., 2011 WL 4833091 at *3 (S.D. Ind. 2011); Bishop v. City of Indianapolis, 2008 WL 820188 at *13-14 (S.D. Ind. 2008); Hankins v. City of Rushville, 2005 WL 2100068 at *2 (S.D. Ind. 2005). In Hart v. Mannina, 2012 WL 188055 at *6-7 (S.D. Ind. 2012), Judge William T. Lawrence explained that it is of no consequence that Indiana provides absolute immunity for government employees; so long as the tort of malicious prosecution is recognized, any claim for malicious prosecution under Section 1983 is foreclosed. This Magistrate Judge concludes that, in desiring to provide litigants with uniform treatment in this District, under the facts alleged in this case, Plaintiff cannot bring a cause of action for malicious prosecution under Section 1983.