Lloyd v. Fries, No. 3:2016cv00218 - Document 15 (N.D. Ind. 2017)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER re 13 Amended Complaint. The Court GRANTS Frank L. Lloyd leave to proceed against Sheriff Fries in his official capacity for compensatory and punitive damages for implementing a policy and procedure in violation of the Fourtee nth Amendment which required inmates to share hair clippers without a way to sterilize them between uses which resulted in Frank L. Lloyd contracting Hepatitis C; DISMISSES all other claims; DIRECTS the clerk and the United States Marshals Service to issue and serve process on Sheriff Fries with a copy of this order and the amended complaint (ECF 13) as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); and ORDERS, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), Sheriff Fries to respond, as provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and N.D. Ind. L.R. 10-1(b), only to the claim for which the plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in this screening order. Signed by Judge William C Lee on 4/11/2017. (Copy mailed as directed in Order)(rmc)

Download PDF

Lloyd v. Fries Doc. 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION FRANK L. LLOYD, Plaintiff, v. SHERIFF FRIES, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CAUSE NO. 3:16-CV-218 WL OPINION AND ORDER Frank L. Lloyd, a pro se prisoner, filed an amended complaint alleging that he contracted Hepatitis C while he was housed in the Allen County Jail as a pre-trial detainee because Sheriff Fries implemented a policy and procedure which required inmates to share hair clippers without a way to sterilize them between uses. “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). However, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review the merits of a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. “In order to state a claim under § 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 evaluating the constitutionality of conditions or restrictions of pretrial detention . . . the proper inquiry is whether those conditions amount to punishment of the detainee.” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979). “[I]n the absence of an expressed intent to punish, a pretrial detainee Dockets.Justia.com can nevertheless prevail by showing that the actions are not ‘rationally related to a legitimate nonpunitive governmental purpose’ or that the actions ‘appear excessive in relation to that purpose.’” Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. __, __; 135 S.Ct. 2466, 2473 (2015) (quoting Bell). Pursuant to Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), a sheriff in his official capacity can be held liable for monetary damages. See Thomas v. Cook Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 604 F.3d 293, 305 (7th Cir. 2010). Giving Lloyd the benefit of the inferences to which he is entitled at the pleading stage of this proceeding, this complaint states a claim and Frank L. Lloyd will be granted leave to proceed against Sheriff Fries in his official capacity For these reasons, the court: (1) GRANTS Frank L. Lloyd leave to proceed against Sheriff Fries in his official capacity for compensatory and punitive damages for implementing a policy and procedure in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment which required inmates to share hair clippers without a way to sterilize them between uses which resulted in Frank L. Lloyd contracting Hepatitis C; (2) DISMISSES all other claims; (3) DIRECTS the clerk and the United States Marshals Service to issue and serve process on Sheriff Fries with a copy of this order and the amended complaint (ECF 13) as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); and (4) ORDERS, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), Sheriff Fries to respond, as provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and N.D. Ind. L.R. 10-1(b), only to the claim for which the plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in this screening order. SO ORDERED. ENTERED: April 11, 2017 s/William C. Lee William C. Lee, Judge United States District Court 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.