U.S. District Court dismisses lawsuit by former IU basketball players 

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on Tuesday dismissed a federal lawsuit filed by several former Indiana University basketball players against the university. 

Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on Tuesday dismissed the lawsuit in which players accused the university of doing nothing to stop repeated rectal exams they said they received from the former team physician. 

Attorneys for IU and the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to The Indiana Lawyer’s request for comment.

In October 2024, two former IU players filed a complaint against the Trustees of Indiana University, stating that they were subjected to the exams by team physician Dr. Bradford Bomba Sr. while they played for IU in the late 1990s.  

It was only after the plaintiffs spoke with other former players and loved ones that they said they realized Bomba’s exams constituted sexual abuse, they said. 

Other players eventually joined the lawsuit, and the plaintiffs added Tim Garl, Bomba’s former supervisor, as a defendant, saying he also knew about the abuse but did nothing about it.  

Garl’s attorney did not immediately return messages from The Indiana Lawyer.

An independent review of the allegations, conducted by the law firm Jones Day, was released in May 2025 and determined that Bomba did not act in bad faith or with improper purpose.

On the federal level, the plaintiffs filed claims against IU under Title IX and filed claims against Garl under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Section 1983), arguing the defendants deprived them of their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The plaintiffs also filed claims against both parties under Indiana state law.  

In the March 31 order, Judge Pratt dismissed the plaintiffs’ Title IX and Section 1983 claims, stating that the claims are barred by a two-year statute of limitations.  

Though the parties disputed when that two-year clock started, Judge Pratt sided with the defendants and agreed the two years began when the players were students at IU.  

Citing other medical malpractice cases, Judge Pratt determined that the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Seventh Circuit court have “repeatedly held that a plaintiff’s knowledge of an injury—not that the injury is wrongful—is what matters for determining when a claim accrues,” according to the order.  

Judge Pratt dismissed the federal claims with prejudice.  

On the state law claims, Judge Pratt determined that the claims should be decided by an Indiana state court. Citing a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, Judge Pratt dismissed the claims without prejudice so that the claims can be refiled in state court.  

The case is Mujezinovic et al v. Trustees of Indiana University, Tim Garl, 1:24-cv-01827-TWP-MG.