ASHLOCK v. BROWN et al

Filing 13

ORDER denying 8 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint. The proposed amendment is futile because it fails to add a viable claim. To allow the amended complaint in this case would therefore be an act of futility and the motion to amend [dkt. 8] is denied. **SEE ORDER** Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 1/30/2015. (AH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER ASHLOCK,
Plaintiff,
vs.
J SEXTON Correctional Officer, Individually
and in his Official Capacity,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:14-cv-00360-JMS-WGH

ENTRY
The plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint [dkt. 8] has been considered.
The proposed amended complaint seeks to add a claim for relief against Lt. Nicholson.
In this civil action, the plaintiff alleges that he fell down a flight of stairs and was injured
as a result of defendant J. Sexton’s failure to follow policies and procedures by not physically
assisting the plaintiff as he descended the stairs with his hands cuffed behind his back. According
to the proposed amended complaint, Lt. Nicholson shook his head in disapproval upon learning
that Correctional Officer Sexton failed to physically assist the plaintiff down the stairs.
The plaintiff alleges that Lt. Nicholson should be legally responsible for ensuring that all
custody staff in the secure confinement unit adhere to the law and Indiana Department of
Corrections policies and procedures. The proposed amended complaint states that Lt. Nicholson is
liable because he has been the supervisor of the SCU for many years and during that time multiple
offenders have been injured in falls as a result of descending the stairs unassisted while in
restraints. Lt. Nicholson allegedly failed to take steps to protect offenders from descending the
stairs unassisted in restraints.

Liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, however, requires personal responsibility for the
misconduct alleged. See West v. Waymire, 114 F.3d 646, 649 (7th Cir. 1997)(“the doctrine of
respondeat superior is not available to a plaintiff in a section 1983 suit”). In Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 676–77 (2009), the Supreme Court wrote that knowledge of a subordinate’s
misconduct is not enough. The supervisor can be liable only if he wants the harmful conduct to
occur. Id. at 677. Ashlock does not (and could not) allege that Lt. Nicholson wanted Ashlock to
fall down the metal stairs with his hands cuffed behind his back. The fact that other inmates had
previously fallen when other correctional officers failed to follow proper procedures is insufficient
to support liability. But both Iqbal and Burks v. Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592, 596 (7th Cir. 2009) hold
that a supervisor is not liable just because a complaint is made and an effective solution is not
forthcoming. See Vance v. Rumsfeld, 701 F.3d 193, 204 (7th Cir. 2012).
For the reasons explained above, the proposed amendment is futile because it fails to add
a viable claim. To allow the amended complaint in this case would therefore be an act of futility
and the motion to amend [dkt. 8] is denied. See Perkins v. Silverstein, 939 F.2d 463, 472 (7th Cir.
1991) (“To hold otherwise would impose upon the defendants and the courts the arduous task of
responding to an obviously futile gesture on the part of the plaintiffs.”).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

January 30, 2015
Date: __________________

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

Distribution:
CHRISTOPHER ASHLOCK
DOC # 137864
WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Inmate Mail/Parcels
6908 S. Old US Hwy 41
P.O. Box 1111
CARLISLE, IN 47838
All Electronically Registered Counsel