BRODGEN v. DANGLER
Entry Screening Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings - The clerk is directed to issue process to defendant Officer B. Dangler. Process shall consist of the complaint filed on 9/23/2019, (dkt 1 ), applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), and this Entry (See Entry). Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/7/2019 (Copies mailed per distribution list).(TMC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
NEW ALBANY DIVISION
KYREE D. BRODGEN,
Entry Screening Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings
Plaintiff Kyree D. Brodgen, an inmate at the Floyd County Jail, alleges that he was
subjected to excessive force by the defendant.
I. Screening Standard
Because the plaintiff is a “prisoner” as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(c), this Court has
an obligation under § 1915A(a) to screen his complaint before service on the defendants.
Pursuant to § 1915A(b), 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. In determining 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). To survive
[the] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a
claim for relief that is plausible on its face. 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). Pro se complaints such as that filed by the plaintiff
are construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers. Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 776 (7th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation omitted).
II. The Complaint
The complaint alleges that on August 21, 2019, there was an altercation and the plaintiff
refused to get on the dirty ground. In response, the plaintiff was restrained and handcuffed. After
the plaintiff was handcuffed, he “was punched excessively by Officer R Dangler in the face….”
Dkt. 1 at p. 2. The plaintiff seeks money damages against Officer Dangler for excessive use of
III. Discussion of Claims
The excessive force claim against Officer Dangler has been screened and shall proceed as
submitted. Whether the excessive force claim shall be understood as brought pursuant to the
Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment depends on whether the plaintiff was a pretrial detainee or a
convicted prisoner at the time of the use of force.
This summary of claims includes all of the viable claims identified by the Court.
IV. Service of Process
The clerk is directed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to defendant Officer
B. Dangler in the manner specified by Rule 4(d). Process shall consist of the complaint filed on
September 23, 2019, (docket 1), applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of
Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), and this Entry.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
KYREE D. BRODGEN
FLOYD COUNTY JAIL
P.O. Box 1406
New Albany, IN 47150
Officer B. Dangler
Floyd County Jail
311 Hauss Sq.
New Albany, IN 47150
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?