ILNews

Court dismisses photograph suit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A man's pro se prisoner suit against the public information officer of a correctional facility and a reporter that he claimed are responsible for his shooting injury was dismissed Tuesday by a U.S. District Court judge. The claims weren't actionable under the prisoner's 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 complaint.

In Shandonn M. Shepherd v. Trevor Wendzoka and Jeff Burton, No. 3:08-cv-605, Shandonn Shepherd filed his suit against Trevor Wendzoka, as PIO of the Elkhart County Correctional Facility, and Jeff Burton, a reporter for the Elkhart Truth newspaper, after he was shot in a drive-by shooting in June following his release from the facility.

Several months earlier, a photograph of Shepherd was released to the media by Wendzoka following a murder in which Tyrus Coleman was sought for questioning. Shepherd claimed the drive-by shooting was in retaliation for his being linked to a murder by the newspaper using his photograph instead of a picture of Coleman.

Shepherd claimed his mother told Burton he had the wrong photograph, but Burton ignored her and published an article with his picture. Shepherd alleged Wendzoka libeled his character and exposed him to risk of injury by releasing his photograph to the media.

However, in 2005, Shepherd had given authorities Coleman's name when he was arrested in an unrelated incident. He was later charged with false informing once police discovered Shepherd's true identity; the photo was never updated with the correct information.

In his suit, Shepherd wanted $750,000 for his medical bills and as a result of his reputation being ruined because of the published photo.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Van Bokkelen of Indiana's Northern District dismissed the complaint because claims for slander and defamation aren't actionable under Section 1983, so Shepherd doesn't have a claim against Wendzoka. He also failed to state a claim against Burton because Burton is a newspaper reporter and wasn't acting under color of state law when he printed Shepherd's photograph.

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. My daughters' kids was removed from the home in March 2015, she has been in total compliance with the requirements of cps, she is going to court on the 4th of August. Cps had called the first team meeting last Monday to inform her that she was not in compliance, by not attending home based therapy, which is done normally with the children in the home, and now they are recommending her to have a psych evaluation, and they are also recommending that the children not be returned to the home. This is all bull hockey. In this so called team meeting which I did attend for the best interest of my child and grandbabies, I learned that no matter how much she does that cps is not trying to return the children and the concerns my daughter has is not important to cps, they only told her that she is to do as they say and not to resist or her rights will be terminated. I cant not believe the way Cps treats people knowing if they threaten you with loosing your kids you will do anything to get them back. My daughter is drug free she has never put her hands on any of her children she does not scream at her babies at all, but she is only allowed to see her kids 6 hours a week and someone has to supervise. Lets all tske a stand against the child protection services. THEY CAN NO LONGER TAKE CHILDREN FROM THERE PARENTS.

  2. Planned Parenthood has the government so trained . . .

  3. In a related story, an undercover video team released this footage of the government's search of the Planned Parenthood facilities. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXVN7QJ8m88

  4. Here is an excellent movie for those wanting some historical context, as well as encouragement to stand against dominant political forces and knaves who carry the staves of governance to enforce said dominance: http://www.copperheadthemovie.com/

  5. Not enough copperheads here to care anymore, is my guess. Otherwise, a totally pointless gesture. ... Oh wait: was this done because somebody want to avoid bad press - or was it that some weak kneed officials cravenly fear "protest" violence by "urban youths.."

ADVERTISEMENT