Bardlette v. Redden
OPINION AND ORDER re [6 Amended Complaint; Bardlette is GRANTED leave to proceed against Sgt. Redden in his individual capacity for monetary damages for using excessive force against him on April 22, 2016; all other claims are DISMISSED; the clerk an d the U S. Marshals Service are DIRECTED to issue and serve process on Sgt. Redden with a copy of this order and the amended complaint; and Sgt. Redden is ORDERED to respond only to the claim for which the pro se plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in this screening order. Signed by Judge Philip P Simon on 8/21/2017. (Copy mailed as directed in Order)(lpw)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
MARIO T. BARDLETTE,
CAUSE NO. 3:17CV290-PPS
OPINION AND ORDER
Mario T. Bardlette, a pro se prisoner, initially filed a complaint alleging that Sgt.
Redden somehow allowed him to become injured while escorting him through the
Indiana State Prison (ISP). ECF 2. However, his complaint was unduly vague because it
lacked the specific information necessary to determine if a constitutional claim existed.
While he did not state a claim for which relief could be granted, Bardlette was given
leave to file an amended complaint in the spirit of Luevano v. Wal-Mart, 722 F.3d 1014
(7th Cir. 2013). Bardlette has now filed an amended complaint. ECF 6.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, I must review 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.
Under federal pleadings standards, 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 [him] that might be redressed by the law.” Swanson v.
Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 403 (7th Cir. 2010) (emphasis in original). Instead, the
plaintiff must provide sufficient factual matter to state a claim that is plausible on its
face. Ray v. City of Chicago, 629 F.3d 660, 662-63 (7th Cir. 2011).
According to the allegations of the amended complaint, Bardlette is an inmate
currently confined at the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility. On April 22, 2016, while
incarcerated at ISP, he was accused of spitting at a female correctional officer and
ordered to be placed in segregation. Every inmate ordered into segregation must first
undergo a health screening. So, Bardlette was taken to the Health Care Unit. Sgt.
Redden then arrived to escort Bardlette from the Health Care Unit to segregation. On
the way to segregation, Sgt. Redden pushed Bardlette into a closed, glass-paned door.
Bardlette’s right hand broke through the glass, cutting his hand and requiring medical
attention. Bardlette believes Sgt. Redden did this because the female officer he was
accused of spitting on was Sgt. Redden’s girlfriend. Bardlette seeks money damages.
The “core requirement” for an excessive force claim is that the defendant “used force
not in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, but maliciously and sadistically
to cause harm.” Hendrickson v. Cooper, 589 F.3d 887, 890 (7th Cir. 2009) (internal citation
omitted). “[T]he question whether the measure taken inflicted unnecessary and wanton
pain and suffering ultimately turns on whether force was applied in a good faith effort to
maintain or restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of
causing harm.” Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320-21 (1986) (quotation marks and citation
omitted). Bardlette claims that Sgt. Redden shoved him into the door to maliciously cause
him harm. This is sufficient to state a claim against Sgt. Redden for use of excessive force
in violation of the Eighth Amendment and thus Bardlette may proceed against him.
(1) Bardlette is GRANTED the plaintiff leave to proceed against Sgt. Redden in
his individual capacity for monetary damages for using excessive force against him on
April 22, 2016;
(2) all other claims are DISMISSED;
(3) the clerk and the United States Marshals Service are DIRECTED to issue and
serve process on Sgt. Redden with a copy of this order and the amended (ECF 6)
complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); and
(4) Sgt. Redden is ORDERED to respond, as provided for in the FEDERAL RULES
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE and
N.D. IND. L.R. 10.1, only to the claim for which the pro se
plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in this screening order.
ENTERED: August 21, 2017
/s/ Philip P. Simon
United States District Court
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?