HUNTER et al v. RODGERS et al

Filing 20

ENTRY Discussing Amended Complaint, Dismissing Insufficient Claims, and Directing Further Proceedings: The response to the order to show cause filed by the plaintiff on December 10, 2013 , although titled "tort claim" shall be treated as his amended complaint alleging violations of his constitutional rights. The claim against the Howard County Commission is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because the county sheriff, not the commission, bears the responsibility to take care of the county jail and the i nmates there. The complaint alleges only federal claims. Two claims shall proceed against Sheriff Steven Rodgers in his official capacity, separately and in combination. The cler k is designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c) to issue process to defendant Sheriff Steven Rodgers in the manner specified by Rule 4(d). Process shall consist of the amended complaint filed on December 10, 2013 (docket 14), the supplement thereto filed on February 19, 2014 (docket 19), applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), and this Entry (see Entry for additional information). Copy to Plaintiff and Sheriff Steven Rodgers. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 3/27/2014.(SWM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
ROBERT HUNTER,

)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 1:13-cv-1374-JMS-DML

STEVEN RODGERS, Sheriff of Howard County, )
et al.,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)

Entry Discussing Amended Complaint, Dismissing Insufficient Claims,
and Directing Further Proceedings
I.
The response to the order to show cause filed by the plaintiff on December 10, 2013,
although titled “tort claim” shall be treated as his amended complaint alleging violations of his
constitutional rights. At the time of the incidents alleged, the plaintiff was a pretrial detainee at
the Howard County Jail (the “Jail”). The constitutional provision applicable to his claims is the
Fourteenth Amendment. This civil rights action is necessarily brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1
The plaintiff seeks money damages and injunctive relief. He names as defendants Sheriff
Steven Rodgers, the Sheriff’s Department, and the Howard County Commission.
The amended complaint, and the supplement thereto filed on February 19, 2014, are
subject to the screening requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Pursuant to this statute, “[a]
complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim if the allegations, taken as true, show
that plaintiff is not entitled to relief.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007).

1

Mr. Hunter is the only plaintiff in this action. As a non-attorney, he cannot represent other inmates in federal court.
The list of other signatures attached to the amended complaint is disregarded.

II.
The plaintiff alleges that he was confined at the Jail for five months in 2013 and for six
months in 2012. During this time, three men lived in each cell. The plaintiff alleges that each
inmate was allotted only 26 square feet of living space. He alleges that these overcrowded
conditions caused stress, health risks, and animosities among inmates. This claim shall proceed.
The plaintiff further alleges that there was one table and one stool in each cell and that
inmates ate their meals in their cells. This meant that two inmates were forced to eat on their
bunks or on the toilet. He alleges that having to eat in his cell under these circumstances violated
his constitutional rights. This claim is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted. He has not alleged a denial of food or any other deprivation of a human need.
Conditions of confinement may rise to the level of a constitutional violation only if those
conditions involved the deprivation of a single identifiable human need or the denial of the
“minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.” Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298-305 (1991)
(internal quotation omitted); Duran v. Elrod, 760 F.2d 756 (7th Cir. 1985) (AThe conditions of
imprisonment, whether of pretrial detainees or of convicted criminals, do not reach even the
threshold of constitutional concern until a showing is made of ‘genuine privations and hardship
over an extended period of time.’”)(quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 542 (1979)). Jails
have an obligation to “provid[e] nutritionally adequate food that is prepared and served under
conditions which do not present an immediate danger to the health and well being of the inmates
who consume it.” French v. Owens, 777 F.2d 1250, 1255 (7th Cir.1985) (internal quotation
omitted). Having to eat sitting on one’s bunk bed fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. Chavis v. Fairman, 1995 WL 156599, 51 F.3d 275, *4 (7th Cir. April 6, 1995)
(unpublished) (“[W]hile we acknowledge that eating on the floor is less comfortable than at a

table, this side effect of overcrowding adds little to [plaintiff’s] efforts to state a constitutional
claim.”).
The plaintiff’s third claim is that countless times in the past five months raw sewage
came up through the drains of the showers and day room, even as the inmates took showers. The
plaintiff alleges that these conditions caused health risks, including his having been infected with
a staph infection in his armpits. This claim shall proceed.
The claim against the Howard County Commission is dismissed for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted because the county sheriff, not the commission, bears the
responsibility to take care of the county jail and the inmates there. Ind. Code 36-2-13-5(a)(7);
Radcliff v. County of Harrison, 627 N.E.2d 1305, 1306 (Ind. 1994) (county commissioners do
not have control over the actions of the sheriff); Hupp v. Hill, 576 N.E.2d 1320, 1326 (Ind. Ct.
App. 1991) (“It is well settled that Indiana Sheriffs are not subject to the control or authority of
the County Commissioners of the county in which they hold office.”).
Giving the amended complaint a liberal reading, the Court treats the plaintiff’s claims as
claims against the Sheriff in his official capacity only. The conditions the plaintiff alleges are
sufficient to assert a custom, policy, or practice in how the Jail was run. Because it is
“redundant” to name the Sheriff in his official capacity and the Sheriff’s Department as
defendants, any claim brought against the Howard County Sheriff’s Department is dismissed as
unnecessary. Budd v. Motley, 711 F.3d 840, 844 (7th 2013); see also Burton v. Lacy, 1:07-cv0918-JDT-TAB, 2008 WL 187552, (S.D. Ind. Jan. 18, 2008) (“naming the Sheriff in his official
capacity is the same thing as bringing a suit against the Sheriff’s Department.”).
Any claim for injunctive relief is denied as moot because the plaintiff is no longer
confined at the Jail.

The complaint alleges only federal claims. Two claims shall proceed against Sheriff
Steven Rodgers in his official capacity, separately and in combination: 1) the placement of
three men in double cells at the Jail violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, and
2) the frequent back-up of sewage in the Jail violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process
rights. These are the only viable claims which have been identified by the Court. If the plaintiff
intended to assert additional claims which were not identified in this Entry, he shall have
through April 25, 2014, in which to identify such claims.
III.
The clerk is designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c) to issue process to defendant
Sheriff Steven Rodgers in the manner specified by Rule 4(d). Process shall consist of the
amended complaint filed on December 10, 2013 (docket 14), the supplement thereto filed on
February 19, 2014 (docket 19), applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of
Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), and this Entry.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________________________

03/27/2014
Date: _________________
Distribution:

Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Robert Hunter, 2700 N. Washington, Lot 90, Kokomo, IN 46901
Sheriff Steven Rodgers, Howard County Jail, 1800 West Markland, Kokomo, IN 46901

NOTE TO CLERK: PROCESSING THIS DOCUMENT REQUIRES ACTIONS IN ADDITION TO DOCKETING AND DISTRIBUTION.