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.

Bostic v. Vasquez

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division

June 20, 2018

LORENA E. BOSTIC, Plaintiff,
v.
SALVADOR VASQUEZ, CLARENCE D. MURRAY, DIANE ROSS BOSWELL, THOMAS P. STEFANIAK, JR., SAMUEL L. CAPPAS, JAN PARSONS, and MIROSLAV RADICESKI, Defendants. MIROSLAV RADICESKI, Crossclaimant,
v.
STATE OF INDIANA and THE LAKE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, CRIMINAL DIVISION, Crossclaim Defendants.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          PAUL R. CHERRY MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on the State Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Miroslav Radiceski's Cross-Claim [DE 114], filed by Crossclaim Defendants State of Indiana and Lake County Superior Court, Criminal Division (collectively, “State Defendants”) on May 1, 2018. Crossclaimant Miroslav Radiceski filed a response on June 11, 2018, and the State Defendants filed a reply on June 18, 2018.

         On November 25, 2015, Plaintiff Lorena E. Bostic filed a Complaint against the State of Indiana; Lake County, Indiana; Lake County, Indiana, Board of Commissioners; Roosevelt Allen; Gerald J. Scheub; Michael C. Repay; Salvador Vasquez; Clarence D. Murray; Diane Ross Boswell; Thomas P. Stefaniak, Jr.; Samuel L. Cappas; Jan Parsons; and Miroslav Radiceski. On December 1, 2015, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint against the same Defendants.

         This case relates to incidents that allegedly occurred while Plaintiff was a probationer in Lake County, Indiana. On March 26, 2013, Defendant Miroslav Radiceski became Plaintiff's Probation Officer. Plaintiff alleges that during the course of his time as her Lake County Probation Officer, Radiceski engaged in an inappropriate, harmful, and illegal course of conduct. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Radiceski subjected her to “repeated acts of non-consensual, forcible, sexual and non-sexual behavior and deprivations of her liberty, ” which culminated in an incident on November 26, 2013. (ECF 81, ¶¶ 19, 22). Plaintiff alleges that, in retaliation for her resisting his misconduct, on November 26, 2013, Radiceski filed a malicious and meritless Petition to Revoke her probation.

         On February 8, 2016, motions to dismiss were filed by Miroslav Radiceski, by Jan Parsons, and collectively by Defendants Salvador Vasquez, Clarence D. Murray, Diane Ross Boswell, Thomas P. Stefaniak, Jr., and Samuel L. Cappas (collectively the “Superior Court Judge Defendants”) with the State of Indiana.

         Also on February 8, 2016, Defendants Lake County, Indiana; Lake County, Indiana, Board of Commissioners; Roosevelt Allen; Gerald J. Scheub; and Michael C. Repay (collectively the “Lake County Defendants”) filed an Answer and a Crossclaim against Defendant State of Indiana. (ECF 34). Count I of the Crossclaim alleged that the State of Indiana is liable to the Lake County Defendants for all or part of the claims and damages asserted against them in Plaintiff's negligence claim. Count II alleged that the State of Indiana has a duty to defend state employees in civil suits and, thus, must pay the defense of Defendants Parsons and Radiceski, seeking both a declaratory judgment as well as a judgment for damages.

         On September 27, 2016, then-presiding Judge James T. Moody issued an Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part the three motions to dismiss, effectively dismissing Defendant State of Indiana from the Complaint.

         On August 31, 2017, the parties orally agreed on the record to have this case assigned to a United States Magistrate Judge to conduct all further proceedings and to order the entry of a final judgment in this case. Therefore, the undersigned Magistrate Judge has jurisdiction to decide this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

         On July12, 2017, the Superior Court Judge Defendants filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, which the Court granted on October 2, 2017, dismissing without prejudice Plaintiff's remaining claims against the Superior Court Judge Defendants.

         On November 8, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. On December 8, 2017, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion, ordering Plaintiff to file the Second Amended Complaint with specific modifications to reflect the remaining parties and claims based on the prior rulings.

         On December 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint against the Superior Court Judge Defendants individually, Jan Parsons, and Miroslav Radiceski. The Second Amended Complaint contains two counts-for constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and for willful and wanton misconduct under Indiana state law. The Lake County Defendants and the State of Indiana are not defendants in the Second Amended Complaint.

         On January 17, 2018, Radiceski filed an Answer to the Second Amended Complaint and a Crossclaim against the “State of Indiana and/or Lake County Superior Court, Criminal Division.” (ECF 90, p. 28). On February 1, 2018, the State Defendants filed an Answer to Radiceski's Crossclaim.

         On January 22, 2018, the State of Indiana filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on the Lake County Defendants' Crossclaim (ECF 93); although the Lake County Defendants were no longer Defendants at that point, their Crosslcaim-filed on February 8, 2016, in the Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint-was still pending. On April 13, 2018, the Court granted the State of Indiana's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on the Lake County Defendants' Crossclaim. (ECF 113).

         On May 1, 2018, the State Defendants filed the instant Motion for Judgment on 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.