Opinion
CAUSE NO. 3:15-CV-476
10-26-2015
MICHAEL S. JONES, Plaintiff, v. ROGER V. BRADFORD, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on the complaint (DE 1) filed by Michael S. Jones, a pro se prisoner, on October 13, 2015. Jones is suing State court Judge Roger V. Bradford. He alleges that Judge Bradford "violated due process and due course of law, and equal protection of the law, he violated the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article One, Section Twelve and Twenty Three of the Indiana Constitution." DE 1 at 4. Jones alleges that these violations occurred in "Porter County Courtroom #1." DE 1 at 3.
"A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Nevertheless, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court must review the merits of a prisoner complaint.
Judge Bradford has absolute immunity for judicial acts which are within the jurisdiction of his court. This is true even if his "exercise of authority is flawed by the commission of grave procedural errors." Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 359 (1978). "The Superior Court is a court of general jurisdiction" Storm v. Storm, 328 F.3d 941, 946 n.3 (7th Cir. 2003), therefore Judge Bradford has absolute immunity for the judicial rulings he made which Jones alleges violated his rights.
For the reasons set forth above, the court DISMISSES this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. DATED: October 26, 2015
/s/ RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United State District Court