Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Caudill v. Hayes

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division

October 30, 2017

NATHAN CAUDILL, and RODNEY SMITH, for themselves and on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs,
v.
OFFICER HAYES, et al., Defendants.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          THERESA L. SPRINGMANN CHIEF JUDGE

         Plaintiffs Nathan Caudill and Rodney Smith, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, bring this class action against Defendants Superintendent Mark Sevier, Assistant Superintendent Andrew Pazera, Assistant Superintendent George Payne, Internal Affairs (I.A.) Officer Hayes, Officer Chuck Weiland, Captain Reeves, Captain Robinson, Sargent Burris, Lieutenant Creasy, Lieutenant Herr, Officer Horn, I.A. Officer Carr, I.A. Officer Wiley, Captain D. Reagle, Officer H. Scott, Officer P. Lowe, Officer J. Marshall, Officer J. Morgan, Officer R. Sterling, Officer S. Green, Sargent J. Keininger, Officer D. Nettifee, Officer J. Englehardt, Officer M. Clotheir, Officer C. Stoll, Officer J. Schock, Officer D. Kropezynski, Officer N. Terry-Fielke, Officer M. Houston, Officer J. Engle, Chairman C.J. Vorner, I.A. Officer Whelan, and Administrator Mchorn, asserting, through 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a violation of their Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, and their Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. (See Compl., ECF No. 21.) This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class [ECF No. 78], filed on March 31, 2017. The Defendants responded on April 28, 2017 [ECF No. 87], and the Plaintiffs replied on May 12, 2017 [ECF No. 88]. Subsequently, the Defendants sought leave to file a sur-reply brief [ECF No. 103-1] on September 19, 2017, and the Plaintiffs filed a sur-reply response on September 26, 2017 [ECF No. 107]. For the reasons stated herein, the Court denies class certification.

         BACKGROUND

         On October 7, 2013, the Plaintiffs were housed in the General Services Complex in the Westville Correctional Facility, located in LaPorte County, Indiana. (Pls' Br. in Supp. of Class Certification 2, ECF No. 79; Defs' Resp. 2, ECF No. 87.) The Plaintiffs were affiliated with Caucasian prison gangs, one of them called the “Aryan Brotherhood.” (Id.) On October 7, 2013, as a result of violence between Caucasian and African American inmates, the two inmate populations were segregated by prison staff. (Id.) Caucasian inmates affiliated with white prison gangs were taken to the prison gym, where they were housed overnight. (Pls' Br. in Supp. of Class Certification 2-3.) The Plaintiffs allege that the following day, they warned the Defendants of the likelihood of continued attacks if they were sent back to their dorms. (Id. at 3; Defs' Resp. 2.) Nevertheless, the Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants forced them out of segregation and back into their dorms where they were then attacked and injured numerous times by African American inmates, as well as by the Defendants themselves, which the Plaintiffs contend was excessive and unreasonable. (Pls' Br. in Supp. of Class Certification 3; Compl. ¶¶ 11-14.) Following the injuries, the Plaintiffs allege they did not receive adequate medical treatment. (Compl. ¶ 15.)

         Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, punitive damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs available under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988. At issue here, the Plaintiffs also seek certification of a class related to the claims set forth in the Complaint.

         LEGAL STANDARD

         Certification of a class is proper only if the class meets all of the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and one of the requirements of Rule 23(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; Rosario v. Livaditis, 963 F.2d 1013, 1017 (7th Cir. 1992). Rule 23(a) is satisfied if:

(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;
(2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class;
(3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and
(4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1)-(4); Kress v. CCA of Tenn., LLC, 694 F.3d 890, 892-93 (7th Cir. 2012). If all of these prerequisites are met, the Court must also find that at least one of the subsections of Rule 23(b) is satisfied. As relevant here, Rule 23(b)(3) is satisfied if:

(3) the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.