Klatt v. Doe #1 et al
Filing
3
OPINION AND ORDER: It is therefore ORDERED that: To the extent it is a named party, the South Bend Police Department is DISMISSED. Klatt is GRANTED leave to amend his complaint to add the City of South Bend as a defendant. Klatt has sixty (60) days t o file his amended complaint and summons with the Clerk of this Court. Klatts Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis DE 2 is GRANTED and the filing fee is WAIVED. For clarity, there is not yet enough identifying information for the United States Mar shals Service to effectuate service on the defendants at this time. The Marshals will be directed to serve the defendants under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) once they are properly identified and added to this matter. Signed by Chief Judge Philip P Simon on 11/24/2014. (rmc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
RICHARD W. KLATT,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
JOHN DOE, POLICE OFFICER SOUTH )
BEND POLICE DEPT., et al.
)
)
Defendants.
)
CAUSE NO. 3:14CV1768-PPS-CAN
OPINION AND ORDER
Richard W. Klatt, a pro se plaintiff, recently filed a complaint (DE 1) against
various John Doe officers of the South Bend Police Department alleging violations of his
civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He also requests permission to proceed in forma
pauperis (DE 2), which I will GRANT.
Background
It appears that in 2012 Klatt was living in his van. According to Klatt, on August
1, 2012, he was in his van, parked in front of a storage unit he rented at the Mini Storage
Depot in South Bend when four officers of the South Bend Police Department ransacked
Klatt’s van and used excessive force against him. Specifically, he claims that a black
police officer wearing a helmet and face shield approached his vehicle with a “bashing
tool.” Another “big and tall” officer forced Klatt out of the van at gun-point, forced him
to the ground, pushed his head down on top of broken glass, and handcuffed him. A
third police officer, who is not physically described, pointed an “assault rifle” at Klatt’s
chest. Klatt was instructed not to say a word, but when he asked to be told what was
happening, he was told “now we are putting K-9 on you” at which time a fourth officer
approached with a police dog. At some point, the police officers broke the windows of
Klatt’s van and removed various items belonging to Klatt. Klatt claims all of this was
done without a search warrant. After two hours, the officers informed Klatt that he was
free to go and to “clean up [his] mess.”
Based on these disturbing allegations, Klatt claims that the officers engaged in
police abuse and misconduct; premeditated excessive and unreasonable force; willful
and unreasonable conduct; failure to intervene; intentional infliction of emotional
distress; and violations of his first, fourth, and fourteenth amendment rights. He claims
to have suffered emotional distress, heart problems, severe anxiety, possible depression,
other medical issues, and pain and suffering. He requests $40,000.00 total: $32,000.00 in
compensatory damages and $8,000.00 in punitive damages.
Klatt has attempted to identify the defendant officers by filing various requests
with the South Bend Police Department, but thus far has received no information other
than that his case number is 12-11803.1 Klatt has requested the police report and other
records detailing the incident and a copy of the video from the security camera his van
was parked under at the storage facility.
1
One of his records requests to the police department also references “c. #0085-2013" – it is unclear
whether that is also a case number, or is related to his storage unit location or something else entirely. (DE
1-1 at 1)
2
Discussion
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, I must review the 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. To
survive dismissal, the complaint must state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.
Bissessur v. Indiana Univ. Bd. of Trs., 581 F.3d 599, 602-03 (7th Cir. 2009)(citing and quoting
Twombly and Iqbal). “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.” Id. at 602. Thus, the plaintiff “must do better than
putting a few words on paper that, in the hands of an imaginative reader, might suggest
that something has happened to her that might be redressed by the law.” Swanson v.
Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 403 (7th Cir. 2010). Nevertheless, I must bear in mind that
“[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).
Under this standard, Klatt’s claims pass muster. He has specifically described a
course of events that, if true, could plausibly state a claim for a deprivation of rights
under Section 1983. But two issues remain that must be resolved. First, although it is
unclear, liberally construing the complaint as I must do, it appears that Klatt may have
3
intended to also sue the South Bend Police Department, since he listed “South Bend
Police Dept.” on the caption of his complaint. The Police Department, however, cannot
be sued as a separate entity. Ball v. City of Indianapolis, 760 F.3d 636, 643 (7th Cir. 2014).
Instead, Klatt would have to sue the City of South Bend, since the police department is
merely a department within the City. Id. Thus, to the extent that it is a named party, I
will DISMISS the claims against the South Bend Police Department and GRANT Klatt
leave to amend his complaint to include the City of South Bend as a party.
The second issue is that Klatt has identified the defendant police officers as only
John Does at this point. Although ordinarily a tort plaintiff who doesn’t know the
names of his alleged tortfeasors cannot sue, in instances like this where a pro se party is
unable to ascertain the identity of “an unknown member of a collective body” without
pretrial discovery, I have the duty “to assist him, within reason, to make the necessary
investigation.” Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Service, 577 F.3d 816, 821-22 (7th Cir.
2009) (quoting Billman v. Indiana Dept. of Corrections, 56 F.3d 785 (7th Cir. 1995)). It is
therefore premature to dismiss his claims at this early phase based solely on his
inability to identify the officers. Id.
But, to be clear, Klatt still is going to have to identify those officers in order to
serve them and bring them under my jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4; see also Wudtke v.
Davel, 128 F.3d 1057, 1060 (7th Cir. 1997) (“it is pointless to include lists of anonymous
defendants in federal court; this type of placeholder does not open the door to relation
back under Fed. R. Civ.P. 15 . . . nor can it otherwise help the plaintiff” (citations
4
omitted)). In other words, if he doesn’t obtain enough information to serve the officers,
his claims won’t be able to proceed. So here’s what I’ll do: once Klatt has amended his
complaint to include the City of South Bend as I have granted him leave to do above,
and his complaint has been properly served on the Mayor of South Bend, I will order
the City to provide Klatt with the information necessary to identify the John Doe
officers. Duncan v. Duckworth, 644 F.2d 653, 656 (7th Cir. 1981) (finding in cases where a
plaintiff is initially unable to name any of the persons whom he alleges to have injured
him, “the district court should order their disclosure.”) Once he obtains that
information, he may seek leave to further amend his complaint to identify the John Doe
officers for service.
Finally, regarding his petition to proceed in forma pauperis, it is apparent from his
filing that Klatt is virtually homeless and cannot afford the filing fee. In light of this fact
and the matters discussed above, I will GRANT his petition to proceed in forma pauperis
(DE 2).
It is therefore ORDERED that:
(1) To the extent it is a named party, the South Bend Police Department is DISMISSED.
(2) Klatt is GRANTED leave to amend his complaint to add the City of South Bend as a
defendant. Klatt has sixty (60) days to file his amended complaint and summons with
the Clerk of this Court.
(3) Klatt’s Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (DE 2) is GRANTED and the filing fee is
WAIVED.
5
(4) For clarity, there is not yet enough identifying information for the United States
Marshals Service to effectuate service on the defendants at this time. The Marshals will
be directed to serve the defendants under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) once they are properly
identified and added to this matter.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: November 24, 2014
s/Philip P. Simon
PHILIP P. SIMON, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?