Williams v. Goldsmith

¶5PER CURIAM.

¶6Plaintiff instituted a Section 1983 action in the district court based on an allegedly unconstitutional search and seizure. The district court denied plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis because his claims were frivolous. 28 U.S.C., Section 1915(d). The defendants were Stephen Goldsmith, Marion County Prosecuting Attorney, his deputy, Ann Delaney; Judge John W. Tranberg, Marion County Superior Court, Criminal Division; Richard M. Givan, Roger D. DeBruler, Donald H. Hunter, Alfred J. *604Pivarnik and Dixon W. Prentice, Justices of the Indiana Supreme Court; Linley E. Pearson, Attorney General of Indiana, and Ronald D. Buckler, his deputy. Under the facts of this case, we conclude that all of these defendants are absolutely immune from suit. Butz v. Economov, 438 U.S. 478, 98 S.Ct. 2894, 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978); Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976).

¶7Plaintiff has appealed the district court’s decision and has filed a petition to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. All the defendants are absolutely immune from suit. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim is frivolous. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(d). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to proceed on appeal in forma pau-peris is denied.

¶8It is further ordered that this appeal is hereby dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to pay the docketing fee of $65.00 to the clerk of the court pursuant to Circuit Rule 26(c).