HILL et al v. CLAY COUNTY SHERIFF DEPT et al

Filing 21

ORDER SCREENING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING SERVICE - If Mr. Hill believes that the Court has overlooked a claim or defendant, he shall have through September 29, 2022, to identify those omissions to the Court. The clerk is directed to add Officer John Hood, Officer Casey Harder, Deputy Patrick Duncan, and Officer Elliot Mullinix as defendants in the case and terminate the Clay County Sheriff as a defendant. The clerk is directed issue process to defendants John Hood, Casey Harder, Patrick Duncan, and Elliot Mullinix. Copies mailed pursuant to Distribution. Signed by Judge James Patrick Hanlon on 9/16/2022.(KAA)

Case 2:22-cv-00032-JPH-MJD Document 21 Filed 09/16/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 130

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
JAMES K. HILL,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
CLAY COUNTY SHERIFF DEPT,
Defendant.

No. 2:22-cv-00032-JPH-MJD

ORDER SCREENING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
AND DIRECTING SERVICE
James Hill brings this lawsuit against the officers involved in his August
2021 arrest. Because Mr. Hill is a "prisoner," this Court has an obligation to
screen the complaint before service on the defendants. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a),
(c).
I.

Screening Standard

At screening, the Court must dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the
complaint, if it 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 Cesal v. Moats, 851 F.3d 714, 720
(7th Cir. 2017). 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
1

Case 2:22-cv-00032-JPH-MJD Document 21 Filed 09/16/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 131

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 the pro se complaint
liberally and holds it to a "less stringent standard than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers." Cesal, 851 F.3d at 720.
II.

Second Amended Complaint

Mr. Hill alleges that he was shot five times and suffered extensive
injuries during an altercation at a house in Brazil, Indiana, in April of 2020.
Dkt. 15 at 2. 1 While he alleges that several of the officers named in his second
amended complaint responded to the scene, Mr. Hill does not allege that he
was arrested, questioned, or otherwise detained by police during this incident.
See id.
On August 13, 2021, Mr. Hill alleges that Officer Harder, Deputy
Duncan, Officer Hood, and Officer Mullinix came to Mr. Hill's residence with a
search warrant but no body attachment or arrest warrant. Id. The officers did
not tell Mr. Hill the crime he was being arrested for, did not read him his
Miranda rights, and pulled guns on him. Id. They then slammed him to the
ground and forced him to move his arms in ways that were painful in light of
his April 2020 injuries. Id. Since his arrest, he has experienced PTSD and

While Mr. Hill moved to amend his complaint on August 8, 2022, see dkt. 17,
Magistrate Judge Mark Dinsmore denied that motion as moot because the proposed
amended complaint was identical to the complaint filed at docket no. 15. Therefore,
the second amended complaint, dkt. 15, is the operative complaint in this case.

1

2

Case 2:22-cv-00032-JPH-MJD Document 21 Filed 09/16/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 132

physical trauma, lost his children and his home, and his "freedom is being
jeopardized for crimes that happened to" him. Id. at 4.
Mr. Hill seeks damages for physical and mental anguish, a federal
investigation into the police departments involved in the investigation and
arrest, and for each officer to step down from their position and issue a public
apology. Id.
III.

Discussion of Claims

Liberally construed, Mr. Hill has plausibly alleged Fourth Amendment
excessive force and false arrest claims against Officer Harder, Deputy Duncan,
Officer Hood, and Officer Mullinix in connection with his August 2021 arrest.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. No other plausible claims or defendants have been identified
in the complaint.
If Mr. Hill believes that the Court has overlooked a claim or defendant, he
shall have through September 29, 2022, to identify those omissions to the
Court. The clerk is directed to add Officer John Hood, Officer Casey Harder,
Deputy Patrick Duncan, and Officer Elliot Mullinix as defendants in the case
and terminate the Clay County Sheriff as a defendant.
IV.

Directing Service of Process

3

Case 2:22-cv-00032-JPH-MJD Document 21 Filed 09/16/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 133

The clerk is directed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3) to
issue process to defendants John Hood, Casey Harder, Patrick Duncan, and
Elliot Mullinix in the manner specified by Rule 4(d). Process shall 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.
SO ORDERED.
Date: 9/16/2022

Distribution:
JAMES K. HILL
611 E. Jackson Street
Brazil, IN 47834
John Hood
203 East National Ave.
Brazil, IN 47834
Casey Harder
203 East National Ave.
Brazil, IN 47834
Patrick Duncan
611 East Jackson Street
Brazil, IN 47834
Elliot Mullinix
203 East National Ave.
Brazil, IN 47834

4