Peck v. Nelson et al, No. 3:2024cv00228 - Document 9 (N.D. Ind. 2024)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: The Court DENIES his motion for reconsideration 8 . Signed by Judge Damon R Leichty on 4/23/2024. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (rmf)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Peck v. Nelson et al Doc. 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION MARCUS LaSHAWN PECK, Plaintiff, v. CAUSE NO. 3:24-CV-228 DRL-MGG WILLIAM J. NELSON and MARION COUNTY PROSECUTOR’s OFFICE, Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER Marcus LaShawn Peck, proceeding pro se, filed a motion asking the court to reconsider its order denying his motion for leave to file in forma pauperis and dismissing his case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). “To prevail on a Rule 59(e) motion to amend judgment, a party must ‘clearly establish’ (1) that the court committed a manifest error of law or fact, or (2) that newly discovered evidence precluded entry of judgment.” Blue v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 698 F.3d 587, 598 (7th Cir. 2012). Mr. Peck has established neither. The court has already explained that Mr. Peck cannot sue Judge William J. Nelson because of judicial immunity. Polzin v. Gage, 636 F.3d 834, 838 (7th Cir. 2011). Mr. Peck’s constitutional allegations do not change the court’s prior analysis. Similarly, Mr. Peck asks the court for leave to amend his complaint against the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office to provide more specific allegations, but new allegations will not change the fact that a prosecutor’s office is not a “person” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 63 (1989); see also Jones v. Indiana, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60872, 5-6 (N.D. Ind. July 16, 2009) (Indiana county prosecutor’s office was not subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Nor will new allegations impact the county prosecutor’s office’s entitlement to Eleventh Amendment Dockets.Justia.com immunity. de Lima Silva v. Dep’t of Corr., 917 F.3d 546, 565 (7th Cir. 2019); Martin v. Noble Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1053, 67 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 4, 2021). Nothing in Mr. Peck’s motion for reconsideration demonstrates an error of law or fact, so the court DENIES his motion for reconsideration [8]. SO ORDERED. s/ Damon R. Leichty Judge, United States District Court April 23, 2024 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
