Henderson v. Hahn, No. 3:2022cv00015 - Document 15 (N.D. Ind. 2022)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: The court GRANTS Shonta Ebony Sharee Henderson leave to proceed against Deputy Hahn, the Mail Lady, in her official capacity for injunctive relief to obtain the 60 photos withheld from her on 12/27/2021, in violation of the Firs t Amendment; DISMISSES all other claims; DIRECTS the clerk, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), to request Waiver of Service from (and if necessary, the United States Marshals Service to use any lawful means to locate and serve process on) Deputy Hahn, the Mail Lady, at St. Joseph County Jail, with a copy of this order and the complaint (ECF 1); and ORDERS, under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), Deputy Hahn, the Mail Lady, 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 the plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in this screening order. Signed by Judge Damon R Leichty on 04/21/2022. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(sej)

Download PDF

Henderson v. Hahn Doc. 15 USDC IN/ND case 3:22-cv-00015-DRL-MGG document 15 filed 04/21/22 page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION SHONTA EBONY SHAREE HENDERSON, Plaintiff, v. CAUSE NO. 3:22-CV-15-DRL-MGG HAHN, Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER Shonta Ebony Sharee Henderson, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a complaint seeking injunctive relief to obtain 60 photo. ECF 1. “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, under 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. Ms. Henderson alleges 100 photos were mailed to her at the St. Joseph County Jail. She alleges she was given 40 photos, but 60 were withheld. She alleges Deputy Hahn, the “mail lady,” withheld them because it was an excessive number of photos. Ms. Henderson was a pretrial detainee when this happened on December 27, 2021. Dockets.Justia.com USDC IN/ND case 3:22-cv-00015-DRL-MGG document 15 filed 04/21/22 page 2 of 3 “As a general rule, prisoners have a constitutionally-protected interest in their incoming and outgoing mail correspondence.” Van den Bosch v. Raemisch, 658 F.3d 778, 785 (7th Cir. 2011). However, “an isolated delay or some other relatively short-term, non content-based disruption in the delivery of inmate reading materials will not support, even as against a motion to dismiss, a cause of action grounded upon the First Amendment.” Rowe v. Shake, 196 F.3d 778, 782 (7th Cir. 1999) quoting Sizemore v. Williford, 829 F.2d 608, 610 (7th Cir.1987). Here, the 60 photos are not alleged to have been delayed for a short-term; they are alleged to have been indefinitely withheld. A pretrial detainee cannot be punished without due process of law. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979). However, “[i]f a particular condition or restriction of pretrial detention is reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective, it does not, without more, amount to ‘punishment.’” Id. at 539. “In evaluating the constitutionality of conditions or restrictions of pretrial detention . . . the proper inquiry is whether those conditions amount to punishment of the detainee.” Id. “[I]n the absence of an expressed intent to punish, a pretrial detainee 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. 389, 398 (2015) (quoting Bell). For a pretrial detainee to establish a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, “it will not be enough to show negligence or gross negligence.” Miranda v. Cty. of Lake, 900 F.3d 335, 353 (7th Cir. 2018). Here, the 60 photos are alleged to have been intentionally withheld. 2 USDC IN/ND case 3:22-cv-00015-DRL-MGG document 15 filed 04/21/22 page 3 of 3 Ms. Henderson sues for injunctive relief. There may be a legitimate nonpunitive governmental purpose justifying the withholding of these photos, but at the pleading stage, the complaint states a claim. For these reasons, the court: (1) GRANTS Shonta Ebony Sharee Henderson leave to proceed against Deputy Hahn, the Mail Lady, in her official capacity for injunctive relief to obtain the 60 photos withheld from her on December 27, 2021, in violation of the First Amendment; (2) DISMISSES all other claims; (3) DIRECTS the clerk, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), to request Waiver of Service from (and if necessary, the United States Marshals Service to use any lawful means to locate and serve process on) Deputy Hahn, the Mail Lady, at St. Joseph County Jail, with a copy of this order and the complaint (ECF 1); and (4) ORDERS, under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), Deputy Hahn, the Mail Lady, to respond, as provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and N.D. Ind. L.R. 101(b), only to the claims for which the plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in this screening order. SO ORDERED. April 21, 2022 s/ Damon R. Leichty Judge, United States District Court 3

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.