McDermott v. Walkerton et al, No. 3:2008cv00440 - Document 48 (N.D. Ind. 2009)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Judgment is entered in favor of the defendants. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 10/23/09. (sdf)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION James Michael McDermott, Plaintiff, v. Village of Walkerton, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CAUSE NO. 3:08-CV-440 CAN OPINION AND ORDER On September 28, 2009, Defendants, Frank Canarecci and St. Joseph County, filed a motion to dismiss. On October 8, 2009, Defendants, Town of Walkerton, Gary Layer, and Matt Pitney, filed a motion to join the motion to dismiss. As of this date, there has been no response by Plaintiff, James McDermott ( McDermott ), to the Defendants motion. An adverse party shall have fifteen days after service of a motion in which to serve and file a response. N.D.L.R. 7.1(a). Failure to file a response within the time prescribed may subject the motion to summary ruling. Id. Because no party has responded to Defendants motion, this Court can only assume that there is no objection. In addition, this Court finds that McDermott s complaint should be dismissed on the merits as well. On September 22, 2008, McDermott filed a complaint under § 1983 against the Defendants. On August 16, 2009, McDermott died from causes unrelated to his § 1983 action. Defendants contend that the action does not survive the death of the McDermott. Specifically, the Defendants argue that the survival of a claim under § 1983 is determined by the state law of the forum state in which the Court sits, and that, under relevant Indiana state law, McDermott s claim does not survive his death. 42 U.S.C.§ 1983 itself is silent on the issue of survival of a claim when the Plaintiff is deceased. However, the statute directs the Court to look to the most closely analogous state law to determine survivability. See Bass ex rel. Lewis v. Wallenstein, 769 F.2d 1173, 1188 (7th Cir. 1985). See also Robertson v.Wegmann, 436 U.S. 584, 588-91 (1978); Anderson v. Romero, 42 F.3d 1121, 1123 (7th Cir. 1994). Thus, in deciding the survival of the Plaintiff s claim this Court will apply Indiana state law. Robertson, 436 U.S. at 594. See also Bentz v. Kendallville, 577 F.3d 776 (7th Cir. 2009); Hutchison v. Spink, 126 F.3d 895, 898 (7th Cir. 1997). McDermott claims constitutional violations of his rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. However, this Court notes that all of McDermott s claims arise from his detention in the St. Joseph County Jail for four days without a probable cause hearing. The elements of McDermott s claim are nearly identical to the elements of the tort of false imprisonment under Indiana law. Bentz, 577 F.3d at 779. Indiana law establishes that a tort claim for false imprisonment does not survive a decedent's death. See Ind.Code § 34-9-3-1. See also Bentz, 577 F.3d at 780. Absent any legal arguments to the contrary, this Court concludes that the two claims are analogous, more so than any other tort claim under Indiana law. Consequently, Defendants motion to dismiss is GRANTED. [Doc. No. 45]. Accordingly, this Court now dismisses McDermott s case. The clerk is instructed to enter judgment in favor of the Defendants. SO ORDERED. Dated this 23rd Day of October, 2009. s/Christopher A. Nuechterlein Christopher A. Nuechterlein United States Magistrate Judge 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.