Magistrate advises denial of sheriff's motions

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A magistrate judge has recommended that the Marion County Sheriff's motions to dismiss a complaint against him be denied. A suit was filed following the death of an inmate who didn't receive his needed medicine.

Magistrate Judge Tim Baker in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, made the recommendations Tuesday in a suit filed by the family of inmate Brian Keith Allen in The Estate of Brian Keith Allen, et al. v. CCA of Tennessee, LLC, et al., No. 1:08-CV-0774. Allen, who was held in Marion County Jail II, collapsed Nov. 25, 2006, and died several days later. His family claimed his death was directly because of the failure of the Corrections Corporation of America, which operated the jail, to provide Allen with his blood pressure medication.

The suit, filed against CCA, Anderson, and two jail employees, alleges Anderson is legally responsible for the death because he had a duty to supervise the contact the Sheriff's Office had with CCA, which includes providing inmates with proper medical care. It was originally filed in Marion Superior court in May 2008 but was moved in June 2008 to the federal court.

Magistrate Judge Baker issued his report and recommendation that Anderson's motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) and motion to dismiss federal claims under Rule 12(b)(6), be denied. The magistrate judge used Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009), and Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007), which provide a two-prong analysis for courts deciding a motion to dismiss, to come to his conclusion. The suit alleges Allen's death was a direct result of the CCA medical staff's failure to give him his medication or to monitor his hypertension, and that Anderson had knowledge of the substandard medical care provided to inmates but remained indifferent.

The family also doesn't rely solely on a theory of supervisory liability in their claims against Anderson because by alleging the sheriff did nothing despite knowing Allen and others weren't receiving necessary medical attention, the family tries to hold him liable for his own conduct, not the misconduct of his subordinates. It's also too early to rule whether Anderson is protected by qualified immunity.

Magistrate Judge Baker denied Anderson's motion to dismiss the state tort claims against him as moot because in their amended complaint, the family made no mention of the sheriff regarding their tort claims. He also denied the family's request for sanctions because Anderson's motions weren't without merit. In a separate order, the magistrate judge denied Anderson's motion for a more definite statement as to whether he is being sued individually or in his official capacity. At a pretrial conference in May, the family clarified they are suing him both individually and in his official capacity, so the motion is moot.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What about the single mothers trying to protect their children from mentally abusive grandparents who hide who they truly are behind mounds and years of medication and have mentally abused their own children to the point of one being in jail and the other was on drugs. What about trying to keep those children from being subjected to the same abuse they were as a child? I can understand in the instance about the parent losing their right and the grandparent having raised the child previously! But not all circumstances grant this being OKAY! some of us parents are trying to protect our children and yes it is our God given right to make those decisions for our children as adults!! This is not just black and white and I will fight every ounce of this to get denied

  2. Mr Smith the theory of Christian persecution in Indiana has been run by the Indiana Supreme Court and soundly rejected there is no such thing according to those who rule over us. it is a thought crime to think otherwise.

  3. maybe if some of the socia workers would treat the foster parents better, they would continue to fostr.

  4. We have been asked to take in a 2 no old baby because mother is in very unstable situation. We want to do this but will need help with expenses such as medical and formula... Do we have to have custody thru court?

  5. Very troubling. A competent public defender is very much the right of every indigent person in the US or the Fifth amendment becomes meaningless. And considering more and more of us are becoming poorer and poorer under this "system," the need for this are greater than ever.... maybe they should study the Federals and see how they manage their program? And here's to thanking all the PD attorneys out there who do a good job.