Timothy R. Hartwell v. Vigo County Judicial Court System, Newton Judge, Kelly Judge

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

TIMOTHY R. HARTWELL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 2:26-cv-00443-JRO-MG ) VIGO COUNTY JUDICIAL COURT ) SYSTEM, NEWTON Judge, ) KELLY Judge, ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW CAUSE Plaintiff Timothy Hartwell is a pretrial detainee at the Vigo County Jail. He filed this federal civil action alleging judicial misconduct by the defendants. Because the plaintiff is a "prisoner," this Court must screen the complaint before service on the defendants. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c). I. SCREENING STANDARD When screening a complaint, the Court must dismiss any portion that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). To determine 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 Schillinger v. Kiley, 954 F.3d 990, 993 (7th Cir. 2020). Under that standard, a complaint must include "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). "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). The Court construes pro se complaints liberally and holds them to a "less stringent

standard than pleadings drafted by lawyers." Cesal v. Moats, 851 F.3d 714, 720 (7th Cir. 2017). II. THE COMPLAINT The complaint names as defendants the "Vigo County Judicial Court System," Judge Newton, and Judge Kelly. Hartwell alleges that he is being held in jail on criminal stalking charges "as per two fraudulent protective orders being created against me!" Dkt. 1 at 1. Specifically, he accuses Judge Newton and Judge Kelly of "judicial malpractice" in issuing protective orders against Hartwell

as to two different women, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, Indiana statutes, and the Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct. III. DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT Applying the screening standard to the facts alleged in the complaint, the complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Hartwell wishes to sue judges for actions taken in their judicial capacity. But the judges are absolutely immune from civil liability for actions they would have taken in Hartwell's cases, no matter how wrongly Hartwell

believes they may have acted. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 359 (1978); Killinger v. Johnson, 389 F.3d 765, 770 (7th Cir. 2004). Because the Court has been unable to identify a viable claim for relief against any particular defendant, the complaint is subject to dismissal. IV. OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW CAUSE The plaintiffs complaint must be dismissed for the reason set forth above. The plaintiff shall have through October 16, 2026, in which to show cause why Judgment consistent with this Order should not issue. See Luevano v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 722 F.3d 1014, 1022 (7th Cir. 2013) ("Without at least an opportunity to amend or to respond to an order to show cause, an IFP applicant's case could be tossed out of court without giving the applicant any timely notice or opportunity to be heard to clarify, contest, or simply request leave to amend."); Jennings v. City of Indianapolis, 637 F. App'x 954, 954-55 (7th Cir. 2016) ("In keeping with this court's advice in cases such as Luevano..., the court gave Jennings 14 days in which to show cause why the case should not be dismissed on that basis."). SO ORDERED. Date: 9/16/2026 stin R. Olson United States District Judge Southern District of Indiana

Distribution: TIMOTHY R. HARTWELL 16679 VIGO COUNTY JAIL 600 W. Honey Creek Dr. Terre Haute, IN 47802