Bill Williams v. Stephen Goldsmith

701 F.2d 603
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
DecidedMarch 1, 1983
Docket82-2526
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 701 F.2d 603 (Bill Williams v. Stephen Goldsmith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

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

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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 proceed in forma pauperis because his claims were frivolous. 28 U.S.C., Section 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. *604 Pivarnik 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).

Plaintiff has appealed the district court’s decision and has filed a petition to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. All the defendants are absolutely immune from suit. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim is frivolous. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(d). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to proceed on appeal in forma pau-peris is denied.

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).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Morgan v. Forsberg
D. Nevada, 2025
Bickford v. Ripken
D. Maryland, 2024
Perry v. Stark
E.D. Wisconsin, 2023
Perry v. Borowski
E.D. Wisconsin, 2023
Corrigan v. Leavy
D. Oregon, 2020
Koch v. Bridge
151 F.R.D. 334 (S.D. Indiana, 1993)
Willie James Williams v. Robert L. Glover
977 F.2d 597 (Tenth Circuit, 1992)
McKinney v. Oklahoma, Department of Human Services
925 F.2d 363 (Tenth Circuit, 1991)
Mckinney v. State Of Oklahoma
925 F.2d 363 (Tenth Circuit, 1991)
Hernandez v. Denton
929 F.2d 1374 (Ninth Circuit, 1990)
Neitzke v. Williams
490 U.S. 319 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Harry Lawrence Williams, Sr. v. Gordon H. Faulkner
837 F.2d 304 (Seventh Circuit, 1988)
Lewis v. Faulkner
559 F. Supp. 1316 (N.D. Indiana, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
701 F.2d 603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bill-williams-v-stephen-goldsmith-ca7-1983.