Jermaine Young v. Andrew Achey

• Court: District Court, N.D. Indiana
• Decided: May 21, 2026
• Docket: 3:26-cv-00646
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION

JERMAINE YOUNG,

Plaintiff,

v. CAUSE NO. 3:26-CV-646-TLS-JEM

ANDREW ACHEY,

Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER Jermaine Young, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a complaint alleging his criminal defense attorney did not properly represent him in State Court. ECF 1. “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) (cleaned up). Nevertheless, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review the merits of a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. Young alleges he paid Andrew Achey $10,000 to represent him in a State criminal case. He alleges he was sentenced to prison after Achey promised to get him “drug court.” This allegation does not state a claim because Achey was not acting under color of state law. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981) (“[A] public defender does not act under color of state law when performing a lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal proceeding.”); McDonald v. White, 465 F. App’x 544, 548 (7th Cir. 2012) (explaining that claims against a public defender are frivolous because “court-appointed public defender is not a state actor, and thus cannot be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983”). “The usual standard in civil cases is to allow defective pleadings to be corrected, especially in early stages, at least where amendment would not be futile.” Abu-Shawish v. United States, 898 F.3d 726, 738 (7th Cir. 2018). “District courts, however, have broad discretion to

deny leave to amend a complaint where the amendment would be futile.” Russell v. Zimmer, Inc., 82 F.4th 564, 572 (7th Cir. 2023) (citation omitted). For the reasons previously explained, such is the case here. For these reasons, this case is DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A as frivolous. SO ORDERED on May 21, 2026.

s/ Theresa L. Springmann JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT