Case 2:20-cv-00107-JPH-MJD Document 21 Filed 01/19/21 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 315
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
`TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
`
`
`KEITH MUNDEN,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`No. 2:20-cv-00107-JPH-MJD
`
`
`RICHARD BROWN, et al.
`
`
`
`
`Entry Screening Amended Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings
`
`Plaintiff Keith Munden is an inmate at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility ("WVCF").
`
`Because Mr. Munden is a “prisoner” as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(c), this Court has an
`
`obligation under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) to screen his complaint.
`
`I. Screening Standard
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the Court must dismiss 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 dismissal,
`
`[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).
`
`II. The Complaint
`
`
`
`The complaint concerns Mr. Munden's solitary confinement at WVCF from 2016–2018.
`
`He brings claims for damages against fourteen current and former Indiana Department of
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
`TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
`
`
`KEITH MUNDEN,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`No. 2:20-cv-00107-JPH-MJD
`
`
`RICHARD BROWN, et al.
`
`
`
`
`Entry Screening Amended Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings
`
`Plaintiff Keith Munden is an inmate at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility ("WVCF").
`
`Because Mr. Munden is a “prisoner” as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(c), this Court has an
`
`obligation under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) to screen his complaint.
`
`I. Screening Standard
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the Court must dismiss 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 dismissal,
`
`[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).
`
`II. The Complaint
`
`
`
`The complaint concerns Mr. Munden's solitary confinement at WVCF from 2016–2018.
`
`He brings claims for damages against fourteen current and former Indiana Department of
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00107-JPH-MJD Document 21 Filed 01/19/21 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 316
`
`Correction ("IDOC") employees who worked either at WVCF or at the IDOC Central Office
`
`during that time. The complaint also asserts claims against fifteen "John Doe" defendants
`
`employed as case workers, case managers, or unit managers at WVCF during the relevant period.
`
`
`
` The complaint alleges that Mr. Munden was held in solitary confinement at WVCF from
`
`January 2016 through March 2018. During this time, Mr. Munden's placement in solitary
`
`confinement was not meaningfully reviewed. Mr. Munden's requests for full reviews of his
`
`placement were denied. When periodic reviews occurred, they did not involve any consideration
`
`of Mr. Munden's behavior, the amount of time he had been in solitary confinement, or any other
`
`information relevant to the need for continued solitary confinement. Rather, the defendants
`
`predetermined that Mr. Munden would remain in solitary confinement and simply completed
`
`paperwork—often using computer generated forms—to keep him there.
`
`Mr. Munden further alleges that each of the defendants was directly responsible for his
`
`prolonged solitary confinement because he or she either denied Mr. Munden meaningful reviews,
`
`completed pro forma reviews without undertaking the necessary considerations, trained
`
`subordinates to perform pro forma reviews, or failed to properly train or supervise subordinates or
`
`otherwise ensure that meaningful reviews took place.
`
`
`
`Mr. Munden alleges that the conditions in solitary confinement were inhumane. He suffers
`
`ongoing physical, mental, and emotional injuries as a result of his prolonged solitary confinement.
`
`III. Discussion of Claims
`
`
`
`Mr. Munden asserts First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth and/or Fifth Amendment claims
`
`against each of the defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as tort claims pursuant to
`
`Indiana law. The claims identified in Part V of the complaint1 shall proceed as submitted against
`
`1 See dkt. 17 at 40–41.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00107-JPH-MJD Document 21 Filed 01/19/21 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 317
`
`Defendants Richard Brown, Kevin Gilmore, Michael Osburn, Frank Littlejohn, Jerry Snyder,
`
`Randall Purcell, Brian Mifflin, Bruce Lemmon, Robert Carter, Jack Hendrix, Randy Vanvleet,
`
`Travis Davis, Andrea Stroup, Matt Leohr, and Michael Shamalov.
`
`Claims against all John Doe defendants are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
`
`which relief can be granted. "[I]t is pointless to include [an] anonymous defendant [] in federal
`
`court; this type of placeholder does not open the door to relation back under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15,
`
`nor can it otherwise help the plaintiff." Wudtke v. Davel, 128 F.3d 1057, 1060 (7th Cir. 1997)
`
`(internal citations omitted).
`
`IV. Conclusion and Further Proceedings
`
`
`
`The action shall proceed with the claims discussed in Part III above. The clerk is directed
`
`to update the docket to reflect that all John Doe defendants have been terminated.
`
`
`
`The remaining defendants have appeared in this case and shall have 28 days from the date
`
`this Entry is issued to answer or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Distribution:
`
`Jeffrey R. Cardella
`LAW OFFICE OF JEFF CARDELLA LLC
`jeffcardella@cardellalawoffice.com
`
`Kyle Christie
`CHRISTIE FARRELL LEE & BELL, P.C.
`kyle@cflblaw.com
`
`Thomas Joseph Flynn
`INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
`tom.flynn@atg.in.gov
`
`
`
`3
`
`Date: 1/19/2021
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00107-JPH-MJD Document 21 Filed 01/19/21 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 318
`
`
`Brandon Alan Skates
`INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
`brandon.skates@atg.in.gov
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
