McBride v. Heavilin et al

Filing 9

OPINION AND ORDER The court GRANTS Curtis L. McBride leave to proceed against Officer Ryan Heavilin in his individual capacity for compensatory and punitive damages for using excessive force against him when he charged at him, causing him to be ramm ed against the wall on August 10, 2020, in violation of the Eighth Amendment; DISMISSES all other claims; DISMISSES Officer A. Henderlong; DIRECTS the clerk, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), to request Waiver of Service from (and if necessary, the United States Marshals Service to serve process on) Officer Ryan Heavilin at the Indiana Department of Correction, with a copy of this order and the amended complaint (ECF 5);ORDERS the Indiana Department of Correction to provide the full name, date of birth, and last known home address of any defendant who does not waive service if it has such information; and ORDERS, under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), Officer Ryan Heavilin to respond, as provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and N.D. Ind. L.R. 10-1(b), only to the claim for which the plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in this screening order.. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 1/17/23. (mlc)

USDC IN/ND case 3:22-cv-00283-RLM-JPK document 9 filed 01/17/23 page 1 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
CURTIS L. MCBRIDE,
Plaintiff,
v.

CAUSE NO. 3:22-CV-283-RLM-MGG

RYAN HEAVILIN, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Curtis L. McBride, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed an amended complaint.
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. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A. “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).
Mr. McBride alleges that he was sitting in his cell on August 10, 2020, when
Officer A. Henderlong came to his cell door and told him there was a package for him.
As Mr. McBride approached the cell door to retrieve the package, Officer Henderlong
said, “give it here!” Mr. McBride was confused by Officer Henderlong’s statement to
which he replied, “I don’t know what you’re talking about.” Officer Henderlong

USDC IN/ND case 3:22-cv-00283-RLM-JPK document 9 filed 01/17/23 page 2 of 5
ordered Mr. McBride to “cuff up now.” Mr. McBride asked to speak to Officer
Henderlong’s supervisor.
Officer Henderlong left Mr. McBride’s cell and returned with Officer Ryan
Heavilin, who ordered Mr. McBride to cuff up for a cell shakedown. Officer Heavilin
handcuffed Mr. McBride without double locking the cuffs and opened the cell door.
As Mr. McBride was being escorted out of his cell, he told Officer Henderlong he was
“really acting like a little pussy making something out of nothing.” Officer Heavilin
immediately charged at him, Mr. McBride says, causing him to be rammed into the
wall. The assault caused pain and injury to his ribs and his head to bounce against
the wall. His handcuffs were also tightened to the point where his wrists became
painful.
When Mr. McBride complained to Officer Heavilin about his painful injuries,
Officer Heavilin told him to “shut the **** up unless you’re a little pussy now!” and
escorted him to the custody hall. Id. Mr. McBride asked Officers Henderlong and
Heavilin to loosen his handcuffs and to see the medical staff. His requests were
denied, and he was placed in a holding cell where his injuries were left unchecked,
and his handcuffs remained tightened on his wrists. Mr. McBride says the tight
handcuffs remained on for hours, making it difficult to use the bathroom and to sleep.
Mr. McBride says he filed a grievance against Officers Henderlong and Heavilin for
forcing him to remain in tightened handcuffs and denying him medical care.
Under the Eighth Amendment, prisoners can’t be subjected to cruel and
unusual punishment. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833-834 (1994). The “core

2

USDC IN/ND case 3:22-cv-00283-RLM-JPK document 9 filed 01/17/23 page 3 of 5
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) (citation
omitted). Several factors guide the inquiry of whether an officer’s use of force was
legitimate or malicious, including the need for an application of force, the amount of
force used, and the extent of the injury suffered by the prisoner. Id. Giving Mr.
McBride the inferences to which he is entitled at the screening stage, he has stated a
plausible Eighth Amendment claim of excessive force against Officer Heavilin for
charging at him and causing him to be rammed against the wall.
To the extent Mr. McBride mighy be alleging that Officer Henderlong stood by
and watched as Officer Heavilin charged at him, state actors “who have a realistic
opportunity to step forward and prevent a fellow [state actor] from violating a
plaintiff’s rights through the use of excessive force but fail to do so” may be held
liable. Miller v. Smith, 220 F.3d 491, 495 (7th Cir.2000) (citing Yang v. Hardin, 37
F.3d 282, 285 (7th Cir. 1994). Mr. McBride alleges that, after he made a derogatory
comment to Officer Henderlong, Officer Heavilin immediately charged at him,
causing him to be rammed against the wall. Based on Mr. McBride’s allegations, it
can’t plausibly be inferred that Officer Heavilin’s use of excessive force lasted long
enough for Officer Henderlong to intervene. Mr. McBride hasn’t stated a failure to
intervene claim on which relief can be granted.
Under the Eighth Amendment, inmates are entitled to adequate medical care.
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). To establish liability, a prisoner must

3

USDC IN/ND case 3:22-cv-00283-RLM-JPK document 9 filed 01/17/23 page 4 of 5
satisfy both an objective and subjective component by showing: (1) his medical need
was objectively serious; and (2) the defendant acted with deliberate indifference to
that medical need. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). A medical need is
“serious” if it is one that a physician has diagnosed as mandating treatment, or one
that is so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a
doctor’s attention. Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645, 653 (7th Cir. 2005). Deliberate
indifference means that the defendant “acted in an intentional or criminally reckless
manner, i.e., the defendant must have known that the plaintiff was at serious risk of
being harmed and decided not to do anything to prevent that harm from occurring
even though he could have easily done so.” Board v. Farnham, 394 F.3d 469, 478 (7th
Cir. 2005). Mr. McBride alleges he asked Officers Henderlong and Heavilin for
medical care following the incident, but they denied his request. It can’t be plausibly
inferred that denying this request for medical care on a single occasion amounts to
deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Mr. McBride can’t proceed against
either Officer Henderlong or Officer Heavilin on a medical claim.
For these reasons, the court:
(1) GRANTS Curtis L. McBride leave to proceed against Officer Ryan Heavilin
in his individual capacity for compensatory and punitive damages for using excessive
force against him when he charged at him, causing him to be rammed against the
wall on August 10, 2020, in violation of the Eighth Amendment;
(2) DISMISSES all other claims;
(3) DISMISSES Officer A. Henderlong;

4

USDC IN/ND case 3:22-cv-00283-RLM-JPK document 9 filed 01/17/23 page 5 of 5
(4) DIRECTS the clerk, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), to request Waiver of Service
from (and if necessary, the United States Marshals Service to serve process on)
Officer Ryan Heavilin at the Indiana Department of Correction, with a copy of this
order and the amended complaint (ECF 5);
(5) ORDERS the Indiana Department of Correction to provide the full name,
date of birth, and last known home address of any defendant who does not waive
service if it has such information; and
(6) ORDERS, under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), Officer Ryan Heavilin to respond,
as provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and N.D. Ind. L.R. 10-1(b),
only to the claim for which the plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in this
screening order.
SO ORDERED on January 17. 2023
s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr.
JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5