Utley v. Tibbles et al
Filing
32
**VACATED per Order DE 34 **OPINION AND ORDER: The Court GRANTS James K. Utley leave to proceed against Harrison Yancey, Anthony Watson, Ryne Robinson, Arron Jonas, Lt. Dykstra, Curtis Gillespie, and Carl Tibbles in their individual capacities fo r compensatory and punitive damages for using excessive force against him on March 31, 2016, in violation of the Eighth Amendment and State tort law; and in their individual capacities for compensatory and punitive damages for failing to protect h im from attack on March 31, 2016, in violation of the Eighth Amendment; DISMISSES all other claims; DISMISSES Carl Tibbes; DIRECTS the clerk and the USMS, as required by 28:1915(d), to issue and serve process on Harrison Yancey, Anthony Watson, R yne Robinson, Arron Jonas, Lt. Dykstra, Curtis Gillespie, and Carl Tibbles with a copy of this order and the Complaint 2 ; and ORDERS, pursuant to 42:1997e(g)(2), Harrison Yancey, Anthony Watson, Ryne Robinson, Arron Jonas, Lt. Dykstra, Curtis Gill espie, and Carl Tibbles to respond, as provided for in the FRCP and N.D. Ind. L.R. 10-1(b), only to the claims for which the plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in this screening order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael G Gotsch, Sr on 8/30/2018. (Copy mailed as directed in Order)(lhc) Modified on 8/31/2018 to vacate order(nae).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
JAMES K. UTLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAUSE NO.: 3:18-CV-226-JD-MGG
HARRISON YANCEY, ANTHONY
WATSON, RYNE ROBINSON, ARRON
JONAS, LT. DYKSTRA, CURTIS
GILLESPIE, and CARL TIBBLES,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
James. K. Utley, a prisoner without a lawyer, alleges seven1 defendants beat him
on March 31, 2016, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. “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.
The clerk entered eight defendants on the docket because Utley spelled the name Carl Tibbles in
the caption, but then wrote Carl Tibbes in the list of defendants. Nevertheless, the attachments to the
complaint makes clear the defendant’s name is properly spelled Tibbles and Carl Tibbes is not a separate
defendant.
1
Attached to the complaint are two Department of Correction internal affairs
reports written by Internal Affairs Investigator Charles Whelan. In the complaint, Utley
states the reports “are fact and true.” ECF 2 at 7. The reports explain that on the
morning of March 31, 2016, Utley stabbed two guards in the laundry area of the prison.
ECF 2-1 at 4. After the attack, he was handcuffed, transported to an empty cell block,
stripped, and locked in a cell. Video shows that about twenty minutes later, the seven
defendants arrived at his cell. The report states that one of them grabbed Utley by the
neck and dragged him out of the cell. Utley alleges in the complaint that after he was
dragged out of the cell, the seven defendants beat him “all about the head, face, [and]
body.” ECF 2 at 5. He alleges he was then taken to the shower, where Major Carl
Tibbles continued to beat him. The Internal Affairs Report states when Major Tibbles
was asked how Utley was injured, he replied, “Sorry, I monkey stomped the shit out of
him.” Id. at 4.
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, 32021 (1986) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Here, Utley has plausibly alleged the
seven defendants inflicted cruel and unusual punishment on him in violation of the
2
Eighth Amendment by acting maliciously and sadistically, in bad faith for no legitimate
purpose. These same allegations also state an intentional tort claim pursuant to State
law.
The facts alleged also state a claim for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth
Amendment. A prison official “can be held liable under § 1983 if [he] (1) had reason to
know that a fellow officer was using excessive force or committing a constitutional
violation, and (2) had a realistic opportunity to intervene to prevent the act from
occurring.” Lewis v. Downey, 581 F.3d 467, 472 (7th Cir. 2009). Based on the facts alleged,
Utley has plausibly alleged each of the seven defendants failed to protect him from the
other six while he was being beaten.
For these reasons, the court:
(1) GRANTS James K. Utley leave to proceed against Harrison Yancey, Anthony
Watson, Ryne Robinson, Arron Jonas, Lt. Dykstra, Curtis Gillespie, and Carl Tibbles in
their individual capacities for compensatory and punitive damages for using excessive
force against him on March 31, 2016, in violation of the Eighth Amendment and State
tort law;
(2) GRANTS James K. Utley leave to proceed against Harrison Yancey, Anthony
Watson, Ryne Robinson, Arron Jonas, Lt. Dykstra, Curtis Gillespie, and Carl Tibbles in
their individual capacities for compensatory and punitive damages for failing to protect
him from attack on March 31, 2016, in violation of the Eighth Amendment;
(3) DISMISSES all other claims;
(4) DISMISSES Carl Tibbes;
3
(5) DIRECTS the clerk and the United States Marshals Service, as required by 28
U.S.C. § 1915(d), to issue and serve process on Harrison Yancey, Anthony Watson, Ryne
Robinson, Arron Jonas, Lt. Dykstra, Curtis Gillespie, and Carl Tibbles with a copy of
this order and the Complaint (ECF 2); and
(6) ORDERS, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), Harrison Yancey, Anthony
Watson, Ryne Robinson, Arron Jonas, Lt. Dykstra, Curtis Gillespie, and Carl Tibbles to
respond, as provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and N.D. Ind. L.R. 101(b), only to the claims for which the plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in this
screening order.
SO ORDERED on August 30, 2018
s/Michael G. Gotsch, Sr.
Michael G. Gotsch, Sr.
United States Magistrate Judge
4
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?