KAPETANIOS v. BARTHOLOMEW COUNTY JAIL et al

Filing 13

ORDER SCREENING COMPLAINT AND ADDRESSING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS - James Kapetanios alleges violations of his religious liberties while incarcerated at the Bartholomew County Jail. Because he is incarcerated, the Court must screen his complaint purs uant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The clerk is directed to terminate the Bartholomew County Jail as a defendant. The claims discussed in Part III are the only claims the Court identified in the complaint. If Mr. Kapetanios believes he alleged additio nal claims that the Court failed to address, he will have through November 8, 2024, in which to file a motion to reconsider the screening order. The clerk is directed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to the defendants in the man ner specified by Rule 4(d). Process will consist of the complaint (dkt. 1 ), applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), and this order. Defendant Arn Holt must respond to Mr. Kapetanios's motion for preliminary injunctive relief, dkt. 9 , when he files his answer. (See Order.) Signed by Judge James Patrick Hanlon on 10/24/2024. Copies distributed pursuant to distribution list. (JSR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
JAMES MICHAEL KAPETANIOS, SR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
BARTHOLOMEW COUNTY JAIL,
COURTNEY FISCHER Sgt.,
LYDIA JOHN Sgt.,
SHANE HICKMAN Sgt.,
A. FOREMAN Sgt.,
NEWLAND Sgt.,
ARN HOLT Jail Commander,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:24-cv-00863-JPH-MJD

ORDER SCREENING COMPLAINT AND ADDRESSING FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS
James Kapetanios alleges violations of his religious liberties while
incarcerated at the Bartholomew County Jail. Because he is incarcerated, the
Court must screen his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
I. Screening Standard
When screening a complaint, the Court must dismiss any portion that is
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). To
determine whether the complaint states a claim, the Court applies the same
standard as when addressing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). See Schillinger v. Kiley, 954 F.3d 990, 993 (7th Cir. 2020).
Under that standard, a complaint must include "enough facts to state a claim

to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
570 (2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009). The Court construes pro se complaints liberally and holds them to
a "less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Cesal v.
Moats, 851 F.3d 714, 720 (7th Cir. 2017).
II. The Complaint
Mr. Kapetanios asserts claims for damages and injunctive relief against
the Bartholomew County Jail and six staff members. Dkt 1. He bases his
claims on the following allegations, which the Court accepts as true at the
pleading stage. See Lisby v. Henderson, 74 F.4th 470, 472 (7th Cir. 2023).
Mr. Kapetanios's religious beliefs require him to maintain a kosher diet.
Id. He has been served non-kosher meal trays since the beginning of May
2024. Id. at 2. He receives trays that are uncovered and dirty with non-kosher
utensils. Id. at 3. Before the trays are served, they are stored, uncovered, with
non-kosher trays, allowing for cross-contamination. Id. at 3-4. Because there
is no kosher commissary, he is forced to choose between eating the non-kosher
meals or going hungry. Id. at 4. Mr. Kapetanios has also been denied a prayer
rug or extra towel to allow him a clean area to conduct his prayers. Id.
Mr. Kapetanios has notified all six individual defendants of these
problems through the Jail's grievance process, but his grievances have been
ignored. Id. at 3-4.

2

III. Discussion of Claims
The action will proceed with claims for damages against the six
individual defendants, in their individual capacities, under the First
Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
(RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq. See Williams v. Redman, No. 3:20-CV-196JD-MGG, 2021 WL 1907224, at *3 (N.D. Ind. May 12, 2021) (noting that it is
an "open question" as to whether RLUIPA allows "appropriate relief," including
monetary damages, against counties or county officers acting in their official
capacity and allowing RLUIPA damages claim to proceed at screening against
county sheriff) (citing Tanzin v. Tanvir, 141 S. Ct. 486, 492 (2020)).
The action will also proceed with injunctive relief claims under the First
Amendment and RLUIPA, and a damages claim under RLUIPA, against Jail
Commander Arn Holt in his official capacity.
Claims against the Jail are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted because the Jail is a non-suable entity. Smith v.
Knox County Jail, 666 F.3d 1037, 1040 (7th Cir. 2012) ("[T]he district court was
correct that, in listing the Knox County Jail as the sole defendant, Smith
named a non-suable entity.").
IV. Conclusion and Issuance of Process
The action will proceed with First Amendment and RLUIPA claims for
damages against the six individual defendants in their individual capacities;
plus injunctive relief claims under the First Amendment and RLUIPA, and a

3

damages claim under RLUIPA, against Jail Commander Arn Holt in his official
capacity. All other claims are dismissed.
The clerk is directed to terminate the Bartholomew County Jail as a
defendant.
The claims discussed in Part III are the only claims the Court identified
in the complaint. If Mr. Kapetanios believes he alleged additional claims that
the Court failed to address, he will have through November 8, 2024, in which
to file a motion to reconsider the screening order.
The clerk is directed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process
to the defendants in the manner specified by Rule 4(d). Process will consist of
the complaint (dkt. [1]), applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for
Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), and this
order.
Defendant Arn Holt must respond to Mr. Kapetanios's motion for
preliminary injunctive relief, dkt. [9], when he files his answer.
SO ORDERED.
Date: 10/24/2024

4

Distribution:
JAMES MICHAEL KAPETANIOS, SR.
BARTHOLOMEW COUNTY JAIL
540 1st Street
Columbus, IN 47201
Sergeant Courtney Fischer
Bartholomew County Jail
543 Second St.
Columbus, IN 47201
Sergeant Lydia John
Bartholomew County Jail
543 Second St.
Columbus, IN 47201
Sergeant Shane Hickman
Bartholomew County Jail
543 Second St.
Columbus, IN 47201
Sergeant A. Foreman
Bartholomew County Jail
543 Second St.
Columbus, IN 47201
Sergeant Newland
Bartholomew County Jail
543 Second St.
Columbus, IN 47201
Jail Commander Arn Holt
Bartholomew County Jail
543 Second St.
Columbus, IN 47201

5