GALBREATH v. HELEN

S.D. Indiana

GALBREATH v. HELEN

DecidedJune 25, 2025

Docket1:25-cv-00853

StatusUnknown

This text of GALBREATH v. HELEN (GALBREATH v. HELEN) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Indiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

GALBREATH v. HELEN, (S.D. Ind. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

KEEL GALBREATH, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 1:25-cv-00853-JPH-TAB ) MARCHAL W. HELEN, ) RYAN MEARS, ) KATE SWEENEY BELL, ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER DISMISSING CASE The Court screened Mr. Galbreath's original complaint and dismissed it because it failed to state a claim and because each defendant enjoys immunity from suit. Dkt. 6. Mr. Galbreath then filed an amended complaint. Dkt. 7. It alleges the following: "all parties actions as government officials" exceeded "their authority acting outside [their] bounds of their lawful authority"; civil rights violations; failure to protect him from harm; "deprivation of rights color of law"; breach of fiduciary duty; and "testilying." Id. at 5. However, these allegations do not present a "story that holds together" about what any of the defendants did, McCauley v. City of Chicago, 671 F.3d 611, 616 (7th Cir. 2011), so the amended complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). And as the Court's initial screening order discussed, each defendant is entitled to immunity from suit. Dkt. 6 at 3–4. None of the allegations in Mr. Galbreath's amended complaint compel a different conclusion. Mr. Galbreath's claims are therefore DISMISSED with prejudice. Final judgment shall issue by separate entry. SO ORDERED. Date: 6/25/2025 ams Pat tavbor— James Patrick Hanlon United States District Judge Southern District of Indiana Distribution: KEEL GALBREATH 2863 East Raymond St. Indianapolis, IN 46203

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

KEEL GALBREATH, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 1:25-cv-00853-JPH-TAB ) MARCHAL W. HELEN, ) RYAN MEARS, ) KATE SWEENEY BELL, ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER DISMISSING CASE The Court screened Mr. Galbreath's original complaint and dismissed it because it failed to state a claim and because each defendant enjoys immunity from suit. Dkt. 6. Mr. Galbreath then filed an amended complaint. Dkt. 7. It alleges the following: "all parties actions as government officials" exceeded "their authority acting outside [their] bounds of their lawful authority"; civil rights violations; failure to protect him from harm; "deprivation of rights color of law"; breach of fiduciary duty; and "testilying." Id. at 5. However, these allegations do not present a "story that holds together" about what any of the defendants did, McCauley v. City of Chicago, 671 F.3d 611, 616 (7th Cir. 2011), so the amended complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). And as the Court's initial screening order discussed, each defendant is entitled to immunity from suit. Dkt. 6 at 3–4. None of the allegations in Mr. Galbreath's amended complaint compel a different conclusion. Mr. Galbreath's claims are therefore DISMISSED with prejudice. Final judgment shall issue by separate entry. SO ORDERED. Date: 6/25/2025 ams Pat tavbor— James Patrick Hanlon United States District Judge Southern District of Indiana Distribution: KEEL GALBREATH 2863 East Raymond St. Indianapolis, IN 46203

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

GALBREATH v. HELEN, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/galbreath-v-helen-insd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack