HARTMAN v. RANDOLPH COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT et al

Filing 6

ENTRY Directing Further Proceedings: Accordingly, any claim based on an alleged violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is dismissed as legally insufficient. Negligence and respondeat superior are not sufficient to support a § 1983 claim. See Harper v. Albert, 400 F.3d 1052, 1065 (7th Cir. 2005). Any claims based on such theories of recovery or of liability are dismissed. No final judgment shall issue at this time as to the claims dismissed in this Entry ***SEE ENTRY FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION***. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 5/7/2014. Copy sent via US Mail.(DW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
KYLE HARTMAN,
vs.

Plaintiff,

RANDOLPH COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT,
SHERIFF KEN HENDRICKSON,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:14-cv-00524-JMS-TAB

Entry Discussing Selected Matters
I.
The plaintiff is a “prisoner” as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h) and his complaint is
subject to screening required by 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, 127 S. Ct. 910, 921 (2007).
II.
A.
The complaint invokes protections associated with the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a resolution of the United Nations
General Assembly and, thus, merely an aspirational document that does not bind the United
States. See Flores v. S. Peru Copper Corp., 414 F.3d 233, 259 (2d Cir. 2003). As such, the
Declaration's provisions do not create a right secured by federal law that, if violated, is
actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Flores, 414 F.3d at 259 (finding that the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights was not binding on the United States and could not give rise to an
environmental claim); Chen v. Ashcroft, 85 Fed. Appx. 700, 705 (10th Cir. 2004) (unpublished)
(Universal Declaration of Human Rights is merely a resolution of the United Nations, and is not
binding on the United States).
Accordingly, any claim based on an alleged violation of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights is dismissed as legally insufficient.
Negligence and respondeat superior are not sufficient to support a § 1983 claim. See
Harper v. Albert, 400 F.3d 1052, 1065 (7th Cir. 2005). Any claims based on such theories of
recovery or of liability are dismissed.
B.
No final judgment shall issue at this time as to the claims dismissed in this Entry.
III.
The defendants are the Randolph County Sheriff and the Randolph County Sheriff’s
Department. The plaintiff’s claim is understood as being brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The plaintiff’s claim is that his treatment and the conditions of his confinement at the Randolph
County Jail constitute “punishment” in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of due
process. The complaint mentions the Eighth Amendment, but the provisions of the Eighth
Amendment will be triggered only if the plaintiff is a convicted offender. The plaintiff seeks
damages.
The defendants have appeared in the action and have filed their answer to the complaint.
An appropriate pretrial schedule will be issued shortly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
05/07/2014
Date: _________________

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

Distribution:
KYLE S. HARTMAN
155 E. South Street
Winchester, IN 47394
Electronically Registered Counsel