United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division
OPINION AND ORDER
LOZANO, Judge United States District Court.
matter is before the Court on: (1) Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, filed by
Porter County, Indiana, and Terri Wood on December 14, 2015
(DE #30); and (2) Defendants, LaPorte County, Indiana, and
Westville, Indiana's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint, filed on January 26, 2016 (DE #35). For
the reasons set forth below, the motions are GRANTED. The
Amended Complaint is dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE and
Plaintiff is granted leave to file a Third Amended Complaint
on or before October 31, 2016.
Jendrzejczyk (“Jendrzejczyk”) initiated this
action in the Porter County Superior Court on October 31,
2014. The complaint was later amended to add claims pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In response to the addition of
federal claims, the action was removed to this Court.
Following removal, Jendrzejczyk sought leave to amend his
complaint again, indicating that the proposed amended
complaint “provides a substantially clearer statement
of his causes of action against the Defendants.” (DE
#19 at 1).
to amend was granted, and the Amended Complaint now before
this Court (in reality a second amended complaint) was filed
on October 28, 2015. (DE #21). The Amended Complaint asserts
numerous claims under both the United States Constitution and
the laws and Constitution of the State of Indiana. More
specifically, Jendrzejczyk alleges that Porter County,
Indiana; LaPorte County, Indiana; Westville, Indiana; and
Terri Wood are liable for “unreasonable searches,
unreasonable seizures, unreasonable uses of force, assault,
defamation, malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, false
arrest, negligence, illegal conspiracy, and illegal
conspiracy to violate the civil rights of Plaintiff, Richard
Jendrzejczyk.” (DE #21 at ¶ 1).
claims stem from his arrest on November 8, 2012. According to
the Amended Complaint, on that day:
[W]hile Plaintiff was making his normal delivery for
Dustcatchers, Inc., his employer, to Ramsay's West Point
Lounge, a tavern in Westville[, ] Indiana, Defendant Wood,
who was heavily intoxicated, confronted him in a violent and
threatening manner within the sight and hearing of patrons of
the tavern, of the bartender, and of friends and associates
of the Plaintiff and accused Plaintiff of being a criminal,
of having an outstanding warrant for his arrest, and cursed
Plaintiff with abusive names and with foul language.
(DE #21 at ¶ 12). Wood indicated she would “call
her friends” on the police department to arrest him.
(DE #21 at 13). Shortly thereafter, Westville Police Officer
Steve Aimes arrested Plaintiff, allegedly based on an
outstanding warrant for failure to appear. (DE #21 at ¶
14). Jendrzejczyk was initially held at the LaPorte County
Jail but later transferred to the Porter County Jail. (DE #21
at ¶ 15). He was held for six days without a hearing and
then released without explanation. (DE #21 at ¶ 16).
alleges that he was denied medical care during his six-day
incarceration. (DE #21 at ¶ 17). More specifically, he
alleges that Defendants (all of them, apparently) refused to
give him an expensive medication ($2, 000 per treatment)
prescribed by his doctor for arthritis and psoriasis. (DE #21
at ¶ 17). The medication is to be taken once every two
weeks. (Id.) He also alleges that he was
demoted and later fired from his job with Dustcatchers, Inc.,
due to this incident. (DE #21 at ¶ 18).
alleges that a warrant was reactivated when the Porter County
Sheriff's Department “switched to a new computer
system or when they arrested a relative of Plaintiff with the
same last name.” (DE #21 at ¶ 19). He further
alleges that the Prosecutor's office and the courts knew
he was being held unlawfully, and that Porter
County intentionally delayed notifying the jail
he should be released. (DE #21 at ¶ 20). Jendrzejczyk
alleges that the Defendants knew or should have known they
had no probable cause to stop, search, or arrest him or use
any force. (DE #21 at ¶ 21). Additionally, he alleges
that the Defendants had an opportunity to prevent harm but
did not, and that they attempted to cover up their illegal
acts. (DE #21 at ¶ 22-23). He claims that Porter County
failed to supervise Defendant Wood and others, and that
Defendant Wood “acted willfully, wantonly,
oppressively, and with reckless disregard for Plaintiff's
federally protected rights.” (DE #21 at ¶¶
Porter County, Indiana, and Terri Wood moved to dismiss
Jendrzejczyk's Amended Complaint, arguing that it fails
for a variety of reasons, including that the arrest was
pursuant to a facially valid warrant. Defendants Porter
County, Indiana, and Westville, Indiana, also moved to
dismiss the Amended Complaint, adopting the arguments of
co-counsel and claiming that they are not proper parties to
the action. The motions are fully briefed and ripe for
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows a complaint to be
dismissed if it fails to “state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).
Allegations other than fraud and mistake are governed by the
pleading standard outlined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
8(a), which requires a “short and plain
statement” that the pleader is entitled to relief.
Maddox v. Love, 655 F.3d 709, 718 (7th Cir. 2011).
order to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the complaint
“must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face'.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct.
1937, 1949 (2009)(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). All well-pleaded
facts must be accepted as true, and all reasonable inferences
from those facts must be resolved in the plaintiff's
favor. Pugh v. Tribune Co., 521 F.3d 686, 692 (7th
Cir. 2008). However, pleadings consisting of no more than
mere conclusions are not entitled to the assumption of truth.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79. This includes legal
conclusions couched as factual ...