Biddle v. Holcomb et al, No. 3:2019cv01083 - Document 4 (N.D. Ind. 2019)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: The Court GRANTS Brock Biddle leave to proceed on a Fourteenth Amendment claim against Bo Holcomb and Nurse Loftus for money damages for forcing him to share a cell with an inmate with staph infection; DISMISSES all other claims ; DIRECTS the clerk and the USMS to issue and serve process on Bo Holcomb and Nurse Loftus at the Marshall County Jail with a copy of this order and the complaint 1 as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); and ORDERS, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), Bo Holcomb and Nurse Loftus to respond, as provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and N.D. Ind. L.R. 10-1(b), only to the claims for which Brock Biddle has been granted leave to proceed in this screening order. Signed by Judge Damon R Leichty on 12/9/2019. (Copy mailed as directed in Order) (lhc)

Download PDF

Biddle v. Holcomb et al Doc. 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION BROCK BIDDLE, Plaintiff, v. CAUSE NO. 3:19-CV-1083-DRL-MGG BO HOLCOMB, et al., Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER Brock Biddle, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed an amended complaint. “A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Nevertheless, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review the complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. “In order to state a claim under [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 a plaintiff must allege: (1) that defendants deprived him of a federal constitutional right; and (2) that the defendants acted under color of state law.” Savory v. Lyons, 469 F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir. 2006). In the complaint. Mr. Biddle alleges that, in April and May 2019, Bo Holcomb and Nurse Loftus forced him to share a cell at the Marshall County Jail with an inmate with staph infection. In September and October 2019, Bo Holcomb and Nurse Loftus again forced him to share a cell with the same inmate who continued to suffer from a staph infection. Because Mr. Biddle is a pretrial detainee, the court must assess his claims under the Fourteenth Amendment instead of the Eighth Amendment. See Mulvania v. Sheriff of Rock Island Cty., 850 F.3d 849, 856 (7th Cir. 2017). “[T]he Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause prohibits holding pretrial Dockets.Justia.com detainees in conditions that amount to punishment.” Id. “A pretrial condition can amount to punishment in two ways: first, if it is imposed for the purpose of punishment, or second, if the condition is not reasonably related to a legitimate goal—if it is arbitrary or purposeless—a court permissibly may infer that the purpose of the government action is punishment.” Id. A pretrial detainee can “prevail by providing only objective evidence that the challenged governmental action is not rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective or that it is excessive in relation to that purpose.” Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2473 (2015). Giving him the favorable inferences to which he is entitled at this stage of the proceedings, Mr. Biddle states a plausible Fourteenth Amendment claim against Bo Holcomb and Nurse Loftus. For these reasons, the court: (1) GRANTS Brock Biddle leave to proceed on a Fourteenth Amendment claim against Bo Holcomb and Nurse Loftus for money damages for forcing him to share a cell with an inmate with staph infection; (2) DISMISSES all other claims; (3) DIRECTS the clerk and the United States Marshals Service to issue and serve process on Bo Holcomb and Nurse Loftus at the Marshall County Jail with a copy of this order and the complaint (ECF 1) as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); and (4) ORDERS, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), Bo Holcomb and Nurse Loftus to respond, as provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and N.D. Ind. L.R. 10-1(b), only to the claims for which Brock Biddle has been granted leave to proceed in this screening order. SO ORDERED. s/ Damon R. Leichty Judge, United States District Court December 9, 2019 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.