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.,

(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,

(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

. Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police,

(1989); see also Jones v. Indiana,

, 5-6 (N.D. Ind. July 16, 2009) (Indiana county prosecutor’s office was not subject to suit under

). Nor will new allegations impact the county prosecutor’s office’s entitlement to Eleventh Amendment immunity. de Lima Silva v. Dep’t of Corr.,

(7th Cir. 2019); Martin v. Noble Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t,

, 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. April 23, 2024 s/ Damon R. Leichty Judge, United States District Court