Freeman v. Ray et al

Filing 8

OPINION AND ORDER granting plaintiff leave to proceed against Officer Jason Ray in his individual capacity for monetary damages on his Fourteenth Amendment illegal search and seizure claim; dismisses all other claims; and directs USM to effect service of process. Signed by Chief Judge Philip P Simon on 6/21/2012. (kds)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
deCARLOS FREEMAN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JASON RAY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 3:12-CV-154 PS

OPINION AND ORDER
de Carlos Freeman, a pro se prisoner, submitted an amended complaint under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 for illegal search and seizure. “A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro
se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotation marks and
citations omitted). Nevertheless, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review the merits
of a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
such relief. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) provides for the dismissal of a complaint, or any portion of a
complaint, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Courts apply the same
standard under § 1915A as when addressing a motion under RULE 12(b)(6). Lagerstrom v. Kingston,
463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir. 2006). “In order to state a claim under § 1983 a plaintiff must allege:
(1) that defendants deprived him of a federal constitutional right; and (2) that the defendants acted
under color of state law.” Savory v. Lyons, 469 F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir. 2006).
Here, Freeman alleges that his arrest for public intoxication on June 27th, 2011, was without
probable cause, and therefore in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. “Probable cause for an

arrest exists if, at the moment the arrest is made, the facts and circumstances within the officer[‘s]
knowledge and of which [he] had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a
prudent person in believing that an offense has been committed.” Hughs v. Meyer, 800 F.2d 967, 969
(7th Cir. 1989). Freeman alleges he was impermissibly arrested and searched on or around 311
Hillside Court, Elkhart, Indiana. Specifically, he states that when approached by Officer Ray he was
permissibly on private property visiting a friend. Furthermore, the officer removed him from private
property in handcuffs while telling Freeman he was not under arrest. Once off private property
Officer Ray administered four separate breathalysers before informing Freeman that the fourth test
was over the limit and that he was under arrest for public intoxication. Freeman was then searched
and taken to the police station where he remained in jail for several hours before posting bond;
however, the public intoxication charge was later dropped. Freeman does not admit to drinking or
failing any of the breathalyser tests. Nor does he admit to engaging in any conduct that evening that
would justify an observer’s belief that a crime was afoot.
Therefore, accepting the complaint as true, and giving Freeman the benefit of the inferences
to which he is entitled at the pleading stage of this proceeding, Freeman states a claim against
Officer Ray for illegal search and seizure in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.
For the foregoing reasons, the court:
(1) GRANTS the plaintiff leave to proceed against Officer Jason Ray in his individual
capacity for monetary damages on his Fourth Amendment illegal search and seizure claim;
(2) DISMISSES all other claims;
(3) DIRECTS the clerk to transmit the summons and USM-285 for Officer Jason Ray to the
United States Marshals Service along with a copy of this order, and a copy of the amended

2

complaint (ECF 7);
(4) DIRECTS the United States Marshals Service, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), to effect
service of process on Officer Jason Ray; and
(5) ORDERS, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), that Officer Jason Ray respond, as
provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and N.D. Ind. L.R. 10-1(b), only to the claim
for which the plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in this screening order.1
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: June 21, 2012
s/ Philip P. Simon
PHILIP P. SIMON, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1

N.D. IND. L.R. 10-1(b) exempts answers to pro se complaints from the obligation to include a verbatim,
paragraph by paragraph recitation of the complaint.

3