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)

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