Scruggs v. Miller et al

Filing 49

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 28 MOTION to Amend/Correct 10 Opinion and Order filed by Christopher L Scruggs. Scruggs is FURTHER GRANTED leave to proceed on a claim against Sgt. Miller and Sgt. SinClair in their individual capacities for compen satory and punitive damages for retaliating against him by assaulting him on November 14, 2016, for his complaining about the food safety conditions of the jail, in violation of the First Amendment. Signed by Judge Philip P Simon on 7/12/18. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(mlc)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION CHRISTOPHER L. SCRUGGS, Plaintiff, v. SGT. MILLER, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Cause No. 3:17-CV-467 PS OPINION AND ORDER Christopher L. Scruggs, a pro se prisoner, filed a motion (ECF 28) to amend the March 19, 2018, screening order. In the screening order, I gave Scruggs leave to proceed on an Eighth Amendment claim that Sgt. Miller and Sgt. SinClair used excessive force when they attacked him on November 14, 2016, because they were upset that he complained about Sgt. Miller’s handling of food at the prison. ECF 10. Scruggs now asks that I amend the screening order to also allow him to proceed on a First Amendment claim based on that same set of facts. He points out that these two officers beat him in retaliation for his speaking out about Sgt. Miller’s handling of food. “To prevail on his First Amendment retaliation claim, [Scruggs] must show that (1) he engaged in activity protected by the First Amendment; (2) he suffered a deprivation that would likely deter First Amendment activity in the future; and (3) the First Amendment activity was at least a motivating factor in the Defendants’ decision to take the retaliatory action.” Gomez v. Randle, 680 F.3d 859, 866 (7th Cir. 2012) (quotation 1 marks and citations omitted). Here, Scruggs’ complaints about food safety conditions at the prison, if true, could constitute protected speech. Based on the allegations contained in the complaint, these defendants made the decision to beat him based on his protected speech. Though further fact finding may ultimately reveal otherwise, Scruggs has adequately plead an independent claim of retaliation. Accordingly: (1) the motion to reconsider (ECF 28) is GRANTED; and (2) Scruggs is FURTHER GRANTED leave to proceed on a claim against Sgt. Miller and Sgt. SinClair in their individual capacities for compensatory and punitive damages for retaliating against him by assaulting him on November 14, 2016, for his complaining about the food safety conditions of the jail, in violation of the First Amendment. SO ORDERED on July 12, 2018 /s/ Philip P. Simon________ JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2

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?