United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
TYRONE G. CAUSEY, Plaintiff,
INDIANAPOLIS POLICE DEPARTMENT, INDIANAPOLIS SWAT TEAM, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, Defendants.
ENTRY DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING FURTHER
Jane Magnus-Stinson, Chief Judge
Tyrone Causey filed this civil rights action against the
Indianapolis Police Department, Indianapolis Swat Team and
the Attorney General's Office. He seeks 150 million
the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the
complaint is now subject to the screening requirement of 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). This statute provides that a
court shall dismiss a case at any time if the court
determines that the action (i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted;
or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief. In determining whether the complaint
states a claim, the Court applies the same standard as when
addressing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). See Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463
F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir. 2006). To survive dismissal,
[the] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is
plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
“A motion under Rule 12(b)(6) can be based only on the
complaint itself, documents attached to the complaint,
documents that are critical to the complaint and referred to
in it, and information that is subject to proper judicial
notice.” Geinosky v. City of Chicago, 675 F.3d
743, 745 n. 1 (7th Cir. 2012) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(c) and
collecting cases). In evaluating the complaint the Court may
take judicial notice of court records. See McCree v.
Grissom, 657 F.3d 623, 624 (7th Cir. 2011) (stating that
a court may take judicial notice of its records); In re
Salem, 465 F.3d 767, 771 (7th Cir. 2006) (citing cases).
In this instance, the Court considered the state appellate
court opinion referenced in Mr. Causey's complaint; that
is, Causey v. State, 45 N.E.3d 1239, 1240
complaints such as that filed by the plaintiff are construed
liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers. Obriecht v. Raemisch,
517 F.3d 489, 491 n.2 (7th Cir. 2008).
exhibit attached to the complaint is Mr. Causey's diary
of events which form the factual basis for his claims. See
dkt. 1-1. Mr. Causey explains that his problems began on
January 19, 2014. On that day the police were called to his
apartment after an argument led to “a lot of
commotion” including screaming, pushing and shoving.
Dkt. 1-1 at 2. The argument involved visitors and when they
refused to leave, Mr. Causey physically pushed them out
‘like a bouncer at a club.” Dkt. 1-1 at 2. One of
the visitors, Shawnda, pulled a knife on Mr. Causey. The
knife was pulled out of her hand and thrown under the couch.
being kicked out of the apartment, Shawnda called the police
saying that there was a man inside the apartment with no
shirt on and with guns and knives in the home.
Mr. Causey's live-in girlfriend and her son drove the
visitors, including Shawnda, to a hotel.
Causey was alone in his apartment at 3428 Leatherbury Lane
when police arrived. Based on the report they received they
wanted to enter the home to confirm that there were no
hostages inside. Mr. Causey refused to allow them to enter.
The SWAT team was called and Mr. Causey was forced out of his
home when smoke bombs were thrown into his windows. The SWAT
team put assault rifles in Mr. Causey's face. He was
arrested, placed in handcuffs and his home was searched
without a warrant.
Causey was convicted of Intimidation on the Police, a Class D
Felony, on January 21, 2015. On March 12, 2015, the
“trial court sentenced him to 545 days, with 180 days
executed on home detention and 365 days on probation.”
Causey v. State, 45 N.E.3d 1239, 1240 (Ind.Ct.App.
2015). Causey appealed and his conviction was overturned on
November 21, 2015.
result of the defendants' conduct Mr. Causey suffers from
post-traumatic stress, was incarcerated, and lost his job.
Mr. Causey states that he wants ...