HOLMES v. MARION COUNTY SHERIFF et al

Filing 22

ORDER GRANTING 18 CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS' MOTION TO DISMISS - The City's unopposed motion to dismiss, dkt. 18 , is granted. The clerk is directed to terminate the City of Indianapolis as a defendant on the docket. SEE ORDER. Copy to Plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 5/13/2024. (AAS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
EDWIN N. HOLMES,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARION COUNTY SHERIFF,
CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:23-cv-01307-TWP-MJD

ORDER GRANTING CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS' MOTION TO DISMISS
This matter is before the Court on Defendant City of Indianapolis (the "City"), Motion to
Dismiss. (Dkt. 18). Plaintiff Edwin Holmes ("Mr. Holmes") initiated this case based on actions
allegedly taken while he was incarcerated in the Marion County Jail. (Dkt. 1). The City argues it
is entitled to dismissal under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1) because: (1)
Mr. Holmes fails to state a claim against the City of Indianapolis, and (2) Mr. Holmes' tort claims
are barred for failing to comply with provisions of the Indiana Tort Claim Act. (Dkt. 19 at 1). Mr.
Holmes did not respond to the motion to dismiss. For the reasons explained below, the motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim is granted.
I. Factual Allegations and Procedural Background
Mr. Holmes was arrested on January 26, 2023, and ultimately placed in a cellblock within
the Marion County Jail. Dkt. 1, ¶¶ 33–34. He alleges that he was severely beaten by several of the
other inmates who were housed in that cellblock. Id., ¶ 35. Despite being in the care and custody
of the Sherriff, his request for medical treatment was denied. Id., at ¶¶ 36–37. The Sheriff, Correct
Care Solutions, and John Does, were deliberately indifferent to his need for medical attention. Id.,

¶¶ 52–55, 60–63, 70–74. He also alleges that an unnamed Defendant grabbed him from the top
bunk bed and threw him onto the floor or into a wall. Id., ¶¶ 38–42.
On July 26, 2023, Mr. Holmes filed the Complaint in this action, alleging Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendment claims, negligence claims, and intentional infliction of emotional distress
claims. He seeks actual and punitive damages, costs, reasonable attorney’s fees, all with interest.
Id., ¶¶ 82.
II. Legal Standard
The City seeks dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. To
survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the complaint must "state a claim for relief that is plausible on its
face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The court takes "as true all wellpleaded factual allegations and making all possible inferences from the allegations in the plaintiff's
favor." Roe v. Dettelbach, 59 F.4th 255, 261–62 (7th Cir. 2023) (citation omitted)). But the Court
is "not bound by legal conclusions couched as factual allegations." Guerrero v. Howard Bank, 74
F.4th 816, 819 (7th Cir. 2023).
III. Discussion
The City argues that the Complaint concerns "events which transpired during Mr. Holmes'
incarceration, which have nothing to do with the City or its employees." Dkt. 19 at 3. The only
allegations related to the City, are unsupported legal conclusions concerning the City and its
relationship to the Marion County Sheriff’s Department. Id.
Specifically, the Complaint makes the following allegations related to the City of
Indianapolis or its agents:
• "The consolidated City of Indianapolis/Marion County is a local governmental
subdivision, created by and existing under the laws of Indiana and is headquartered in
Indianapolis, in Marion County, Indiana. The Marion County Sheriff is legally a part of the
Consolidated City of Indianapolis/Marion County." Dkt. 1 at ¶ 7.
2

• "The Consolidated City of Indianapolis/Marion County is a local subdivision created by
and existing under the laws of Indiana and is headquartered in Indianapolis in Marion
County, Indiana." Dkt. 1 at ¶ 11.
• "The Marion County Sheriff is the Sheriff for the Consolidated City of
Indianapolis/Marion County." Dkt. 1 at ¶ 12.
• "Under Unigov, the Consolidated City of Indianapolis/Marion County and the Marion
County Sheriff are legally the same entity." Dkt. 1 at ¶ 13.
The City argues that these unsupported statements are incorrect legal assertions that need not be
accepted as true. Dkt. 19 at 5. Instead, the City points out that it and Marion County Sheriff are
legally distinct entities. The City explains that the 1969 "Unigov" Act reorganized much of the
City and Marion County, Indiana, and enabled the consolidation of certain governmental functions,
but it did not consolidate all municipal bodies within Marion County under one umbrella. Dkt. 19
at 4 (citing Metro Emergency Commc’ns Agency v. Cleek, 835 N.E.2d 565, 567 (Ind. Ct. App.
2005) and Peterson v. Borst, 786 N.E.2d 668, 669 (Ind. 2003)).
The caselaw the City cites in support of its position that it is not the same legal entity as
the Sheriff's Department is persuasive. See dkt. 19 at 3-5.
[T]he consolidation of the City and County, as well as the consolidation of their law
enforcement departments, has been only partial – the Jail Division of the Marion
County Sherriff’s Department has not been merged with the City of Indianapolis
Police Department. Further, the Sheriff’s Department has always remained a
separate entity from the City of Indianapolis.
Grieveson v. Anderson, 538 F.3d 763, 770–71 (7th Cir. 2008) (internal citation omitted); see also
Scott v. Consol. City of Indianapolis, 833 N.E.2d 1094, 1101 n.17 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005)
("government functions such as the Indianapolis Police Department and the Marion County
Sheriff’s Department, [. . .] were maintained separately in Unigov."). The distinction between the
City and the Marion County Sheriff is also apparent when one considers that, even after the Unigov
act’s passage, "all of the constitutional offices which comprise the county government were
3

maintained." Id. at 1100; see also IND. CONST. ART. 6 § 2(a) ("There shall be elected, in each
county by the voters thereof, at the time of holding general elections a [. . .] Sheriff [. . .] who shall,
severally, hold their offices for four years.").
The City argues that because Mr. Holmes "alleges no allegations against the City of
Indianapolis or its agents to establish that they are liable for his claims and because the City and
Sheriff are separate legal entities, the City of Indianapolis should be dismissed as a Defendant
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)." Dkt. 19 at 5. Mr. Holmes does not contest this conclusion.
The Court agrees with the City. There are no factual allegations supporting any misconduct
by the City and the legal conclusion that the City is legally the same entity as the Marion County
Sheriff is incorrect. Accordingly, the City's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, dkt. [18],
is granted. Given the dismissal of the claims against the City, the Court shall not consider whether
any tort claims against the City are barred by the procedural prerequisites of the Indiana Tort
Claims Act. Dkt. 19 at 6-7.
IV. Conclusion
For these reasons, the City's unopposed motion to dismiss, dkt. [18], is granted. The clerk
is directed to terminate the City of Indianapolis as a defendant on the docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 5/13/2024

4

Distribution:
EDWIN N. HOLMES
6311 Shelbyville Rd.
Indianapolis, IN 46237
Michael Brian Coppinger, II
[e-mail]
Anthony W. Overholt
Frost Brown Todd LLP
[e-mail]

5