ILNews

Epileptic man’s excessive force, wrongful arrest case proceeds

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A man with epilepsy who claims Indianapolis police assaulted and falsely arrested him while he was having a seizure may proceed with numerous claims against the officers and the city, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.

Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson denied summary judgment for the city and the officers in most of the claims raised in Randy Lynn v. City of Indianapolis, et al.,  1:13-CV-179. She also ruled that Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Officers Timothy Huddlestone and Nathan Challis are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Huddlestone was the first officer to respond to a dispatch call of a person down in the 2300 block of West Washington Street, possibly having a seizure. He testified that he observed Randy Lynn covered with blood and with a white substance believed to be a narcotic in and beneath his nose. Other officers saw neither blood nor white powder on Lynn at the scene, except for snow that had fallen before the incident happened in February 2011.

Huddlestone said he told Lynn to sit down, but he didn’t respond. Huddlestone then swept Lynn’s foot from under him to take him to the ground, but Lynn attempted to stand, causing Huddletsone to fall on top of him. When Challis arrived, the struggle continued, and Challis used a Taser on Lynn at least three times before an ambulance arrived.

Lynn later was charged with resisting arrest and public intoxication, but the charges were dismissed.

Magnus-Stinson chastised both sides for failing to adequately develop arguments, but she found significant issues of material fact in general that preclude summary judgment in favor of the officers and city. Lynn’s federal Section 1983 excessive force, false arrest and failure to intervene claims remain for trial, as do his state law claims against the city for assault, battery, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.

Summary judgment was granted in favor of the defendants on Lynn’s claim of municipal liability and Americans with Disabilities Act claim against the city as well as his state law claims against Huddlestone and Challis.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT