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. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT