Sanchez Martin v. Magistrate Judge Aric J. Rutkowski, et al.

• Court: District Court, N.D. Indiana
• Decided: November 17, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00927
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION

SANCHEZ MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

v. CAUSE NO. 3:25-CV-927-PPS-JEM

MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARIC J. RUTKOWSKI, et al.,

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER Sanchez Martin, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a complaint. ECF 1. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, I must screen the 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. To proceed beyond the pleading stage, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to “state a claim that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the pleaded factual content allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Because Martin is proceeding without counsel, his allegations must be given liberal construction. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Martin alleges Magistrate Judge Aric J. Rutkowski and Prosecutor Sarah B. Troyer were “involved in an improper sexual affair from May of 2022 through May of 2025.” ECF 1 at 2. His criminal case was pending before the court during that time. He claims Director Machowiak found out about the affair and investigated it. He states, “Due to the illicit activity a conspiracy was entered into and plans made, then executed,

to remove my person from society by means of a criminal conviction, thus violating my Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.” Id. He provides zero additional details about the actions of the defendants, the underlying case itself (including the case number and whether his conviction has been overturned), or why he believes his constitutional rights were violated. Martin’s complaint suffers from multiple deficiencies. To begin, his allegations

are simply too sparse to state a plausible claim. See Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 403 (7th Cir. 2010) (“[A] plaintiff must do better than putting a few words on paper that, in the hands of an imaginative reader, might suggest that something has happened to her that might be redressed by the law.”) (emphasis in original)); see also Beaman v. Freesmeyer, 776 F.3d 500, 510–11 (7th Cir. 2015) (describing elements of conspiracy and

noting that evidence of it “cannot be speculative”). Next, although Martin’s allegations are too vague to determine his precise claims, I note there are limits on the types of violations 42 U.S.C. § 1983 covers and on the people or entities that may be sued. See, e.g., Jones v. Cummings, 998 F.3d 782, 787–88 (7th Cir. 2021) (prosecutors are “absolutely immune” for activities associated with “core

prosecutorial functions” even if they engaged in “unlawful rogue conduct”); Cannon v. Newport, 850 F.3d 303, 307 (7th Cir. 2017) (“defendants whom he sued are entitled to immunity, having acted either as lawyers for the state or in a judicial capacity”); Polzin v. Gage, 636 F.3d 834, 838 (7th Cir. 2011) (“A judge has absolute immunity for any judicial actions unless the judge acted in absence of all jurisdiction.”).

Finally, even if Martin had some sort of plausible malicious prosecution or conspiracy type claim—a finding I do not reach—it would still be barred unless his conviction is no longer valid. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994) (plaintiff cannot obtain an award of damages for wrongful incarceration or pursue any other claim that would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction unless it is reversed on direct appeal, expunged, or otherwise declared invalid); see also Thompson v. Clark,

596 U.S. 36, 44 (2022) (federal claims for malicious prosecution brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 require that the prosecution was terminated in favor of the accused) (citing Heck, 512 U.S. at 484-85). Thus, this complaint does not state a claim for which relief can be granted. Although it appears unlikely he will be able to state a viable claim, if Martin believes he

can based on (and consistent with) the events described in this complaint, he may file an amended complaint because “[t]he 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). To file an amended complaint, he needs to write this cause number on a Pro Se 14 (INND Rev.

2/20) Prisoner Complaint form which is available from his law library. He needs to write the word “Amended” on the first page above the title “Prisoner Complaint” and send it to the court after he properly completes the form. Accordingly: (1) Sanchez Martin is GRANTED until December 18, 2025, to file an amended complaint; and

(2) Sanchez Martin is CAUTIONED that if he does not do so by the deadline, this case will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A without further notice because the current complaint does not state a claim for which relief can be granted. ENTERED: November 17, 2025.

/s/ Philip P. Simon PHILIP P. SIMON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT