ILNews

Excessive force, discrimination suit over alleged beating advances

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A man who claims he suffered a bone-breaking beating at the hands of school employees providing security at his son’s high school football game may proceed with a federal lawsuit against the school district.

Louis Williams sued Munster schools and employees he claims assaulted him after they asked him to step off a grassy area where Williams was standing and talking on his cellphone. Williams was seen at a hospital the next day for a fractured rib, abdominal bruising, shallow breathing and back pain, according to the record.

Magistrate Judge Andrew P. Rodovich denied most of the defendants’ motions for summary judgment Tuesday in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division.

Williams, an African-American, claimed excessive force and racial discrimination in Louis Williams v. School Town of Munster, et al., 2:12-CV-225-APR. Rodovich wrote in an order Tuesday that those claims should be heard by a jury.

 “Williams has submitted sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that the School Town of Munster’s failure to provide any training on how to provide security and enforce its policies was the result of its deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of the attendees,” Rodovich wrote.

“The defendants argue that (employees’) actions were reasonable because Williams was acting aggressively and that the defendants ‘simply attempted to move him off the grass.’ ... However, the facts do not support only the defendants’ description of the events,” Rodovich wrote, noting Williams claims the assault took place after he moved from the grass and was prevented from leaving. “(T)he true course of events and reasonableness of the defendants’ actions should be determined by a jury.

“At this stage, the evidence shows that Williams has a plausible claim for excessive force against the defendants. Accordingly, the defendants’ motion is denied.”

Likewise, evidence in the record suggests summary judgment is improper on Williams’ race discrimination complaint. Defendants didn’t yell at non-minorities to get off the grass, for example, and Williams claims defendants made at least one disparaging racial insult during the confrontation.

“At this stage, Williams has presented sufficient evidence to show that the defendants may have acted with a discriminatory intent,” Rodovich wrote.

Summary judgment was granted in favor of the individual employees who are immune from personal liability under the Indiana Tort Claims Act, I.C. § 34-13-3-5(c).


 

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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT