Buy This Entire Record For
Redmond v. Indiana Department of Correction
United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
January 18, 2017
JOHN H. REDMOND, IV, Plaintiff,
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION Corporation, WENDY KNIGHT Superintendent, D. RITCHIE Assistant Superintendent Re-Entry, L.A. VAN NATTA Final Reviewing Authority, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER ROGERS Correctional Officer, T. AARON COX Former Director of the T.C., ROBERT STAFFORD Grievance Coordinator, LAURA RASMUSSEN Assistant Grievance Coordinator, T. UPCHURCH Former Sergeant, now Lieutenant, DEPUTY SHERIFF PALMER Correctional Officer, CLOE Correctional Officer, CASSANDRA FEASTER Former Aramark Employee, LT. GARDNER Former Correctional Officer of C.I.F., R. SIDWELL Former Correctional Officer and Chairman, Defendants.
ORDER SEVERING MISJOINED CLAIMS AND DIRECTING THE
OPENING OF NEW CIVIL ACTIONS
J. McKINNEY, JUDGE United States District Court
George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007),
the Court of Appeals explained that “[u]nrelated claims
against different defendants belong in different
suits.” Rule 18 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure allows joinder of multiple parties only when
the allegations against them involve the same conduct or
transaction and common questions of fact and law as to all
defendants. Rule 20(a) allows defendants to be joined in one
action if a right to relief is asserted against them jointly
with respect to the same transaction or occurrence, and a
question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise
in the action. The complaint of John H. Redmond violates the
misjoinder of claims limitations of Rules 18 and 20(a). The
violation here consists of the diversity of claims against
the multitude of defendants. DirecTV, Inc. v. Leto,
467 F.3d 842, 844 (3d Cir. 2006)(“Misjoinder. . .
occurs when there is no common question of law or fact or
when . . . the events that give rise to the plaintiff's
claims against defendants do not stem from the same
a situation, “[t]he court may . . . add or drop a
party. The court may also sever any claim against a
party.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 21. Generally, if a district court
finds that a plaintiff has misjoined parties, the court
should sever those parties or claims, allowing those
grievances to continue in spin-off actions, rather than
dismiss them. Elmore v. Henderson, 227 F.3d 1009,
1012 (7th Cir. 2000). This is the remedy that will be applied
to the complaint.
action shall proceed against defendants L.A. Van Natta, Final
Reviewing Authority; the Indiana Department of Correction;
and Wendy Knight, Superintendent, as to plaintiff's Claim
I/Facts A and Claim I/Facts F:
Claim I/Facts A; L.A. VanNatta, LD.O.C, and
Knight violated plaintiffs Eight Amendment right against
cruel and unusual punishment by deliberately ignoring
Redmond's request for safety and security, and put
Redmond in further risk of serious harm by not transfering
Redmond out of this facility or filing a separatee against
the offender who continuously threaten and attempted to
Dkt. 1 at 7.
Claim I /Facts F: Supt. Knight did knowingly
and intentionally subject Redmond to treatment that other
inmates in this facility were not subjected to in the same
manner and abuse as Redmond has been in. Redmond was put into
a unit stripped of equal dayroom time, recreation time, phone
time, shower time, restroom time, and other associated
activities, and Supt. Knight knew this conduct was against
the Constitution, Statute, and policy and procedure. Because
I told her that this conduct was against such, and she would
not give me a reason my
. . . [page break in original].
rights were being violated or an explanation. Now I suffer
psychological damages because of the abuse by being inside of
that Special Housing Unit. Redmond suffered from deprivation
of and improper ventilation, mental issues by being deprived
of access to speak with a mental health therapist when
needed, improper sanitation, operations, and environment
issues, sleep deprivation, harassment, and other assorted
sicknesses as a result of this SHU.
Dkt. 1 at p. 8-9.
other claims and defendants are severed. Specifically, the
claims against D. Ritchie, Correctional Officer Rogers, Aaron
Cox, Robert Stafford, Laura Rasmussen, T. Upchurch, Deputy
Sheriff Palmer, Cloe, Cassandra Feaster, Lt. Gardner and R.
Sidwell are severed from the original complaint. ...