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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT