SMITH v. ALTICE

• Court: District Court, S.D. Indiana
• Decided: July 2, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00976
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

ERIC D. SMITH, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 1:25-cv-00976-JPH-MKK ) ROBERT R. ALTICE, JR., ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER I. Granting in forma pauperis status Plaintiff Eric Smith's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Dkt. [3]; see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). While in forma pauperis status allows Mr. Smith to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, he remains liable for the full fees. Rosas v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chi., 748 F. App'x 64, 65 (7th Cir. 2019) ("Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), a district court may allow a litigant to proceed 'without prepayment of fees,' . . . but not without ever paying fees."). No payment is due at this time. II. Screening the complaint A. Screening standard The Court has the inherent authority to screen Mr. Smith's complaint. Rowe v. Shake, 196 F.3d 778, 783 (7th Cir. 1999) ("[D]istrict courts have the power to screen complaints filed by all litigants, prisoners and non-prisoners alike, regardless of fee status."). The Court may dismiss claims within a complaint that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See id. In determining whether the complaint states a claim, the Court applies the same standard as when addressing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Cesal v. Moats, 851 F.3d 714, 720 (7th Cir. 2017). To survive dismissal, [the] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that 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). Pro se complaints are construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 776 (7th Cir. 2015). B. The complaint Mr. Smith brings this action against Indiana Court of Appeals Chief Judge Robert Altice pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dkt. 1 at 1–2. Mr. Smith alleges that Chief Judge Altice was bribed while presiding over Mr. Smith's 2001 arson trial and sentencing. Id. at 2. He also alleges that Mr. Smith's attorney and the fire investigator who testified against him were also bribed. Id. Mr. Smith sought to file a successive post-conviction relief petition based on newly discovered evidence, but the Indiana Court of Appeals denied that request. Id. at 3. Chief Judge Altice "signed the order denying relief." Id. Mr. Smith brings a constitutional challenge to Indiana's Rule of Post- Conviction 1.12, which requires a petitioner to show a "reasonable possibility" that he is entitled to post-conviction relief before he may file a second or successive petition. Id. He alleges that this "reasonable possibility" standard is "unconstitutionally vague and violates due process and equal protection

rights." Id. Mr. Smith seeks injunctive and declaratory relief allowing him to file a successive post-conviction relief petition. Id. at 4. C. Discussion of claims In a § 1983 action "brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable." 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This statutory language "limits the type of relief available to plaintiffs who sue judges to declaratory relief." Johnson v.

McCuskey, 72 F. App'x 475, 477 (7th Cir. 2003). Here, Mr. Smith seeks injunctive relief against Chief Judge Altice because he denied Mr. Smith's request to file a successive post-conviction relief petition, an action relating to Chief Judge Altice's judicial capacity. Mr. Smith does not allege that a declaratory decree was violated. Dkt. 1. Mr. Smith does allege that "declaratory relief is unavailable in this instance," but he does not explain what prevents him from pursuing a declaration challenging the constitutionality of Indiana Rule of Post-Conviction 1.12. Therefore, Mr.

Smith's claim against Chief Judge Altice cannot proceed. D. Conclusion Mr. Smith's complaint must be dismissed for the reasons in this Order. He shall have through August 1, 2025 to file an amended complaint. Because an amended complaint completely replaces previous pleadings, it must be a complete statement of his claims. See Beal v. Beller, 847 F.3d 897, 901 (7th Cir. 2017) ("For pleading purposes, once an amended complaint is filed, the original complaint drops out of the picture."). The clerk is directed to senda form complaint with Mr. Smith's copy of the Order. SO ORDERED. Date: 7/2/2025 SJarnws Patrick Hanlon James Patrick Hanlon United States District Judge eq gs Southern District of Indiana Distribution: ERIC D. SMITH 3718 W. 10th St. Indianapolis, IN 46222