MONNETT v. PLASSE et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
DYLAN E. MONNETT, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 2:24-cv-00564-JPH-MG
)
JOHN PLASSE Sheriff, 	)
DERRICK FELL Sheriff, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER SCREENING COMPLAINT, DISMISSING INSUFFICIENT CLAIMS,
AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO AMEND
Plaintiff Dylan Monnett at relevant times was a pretrial detainee confined
at Vigo County Jail (the Jail). He is currently incarcerated at Parke County Jail.
He filed this civil action alleging injuries due to overcrowding. Because the
plaintiff is a "prisoner," this Court must screen the complaint before service on
the defendants. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c).
I. Screening Standard
When screening a complaint, the Court must dismiss any portion that is
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). To
determine whether the complaint states a claim, the Court applies the same
standard as when addressing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). See Schillinger v. Kiley, 954 F.3d 990, 993 (7th Cir. 2020).
Under that standard, a complaint must include "enough facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
Case 2:24-cv-00564-JPH-MG Document 22 Filed 12/02/25 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
(2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The
Court construes pro se complaints liberally and holds them to a "less stringent
standard than pleadings drafted by lawyers." Cesal v. Moats, 851 F.3d 714, 720
(7th Cir. 2017).
II. The Complaint
The Court accepts Mr. Monnett's factual allegations as true at the pleading
stage but not his legal conclusions. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 ("we must take all
of the factual allegations in the complaint as true," but "we 'are not bound to
accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation'") (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555)). The complaint names two defendants: 1) former
Sheriff of Vigo County John Plasse (deceased); and 2) current Sheriff Derrick Fell.
Mr. Monnett seeks compensatory and injunctive relief.
Mr. Monnett alleges that on or about July 20, 2024, he was assaulted by
a convicted inmate (he describes as an IDOC inmate) at the Jail as a result of
overcrowding. He alleges that the Jail is "over 80% capacity leaving the Vigo
County Jail unable to insure the safety of all … inmates and staff." Dkt. 1 at 3.
He alleges that defendants Plasse and Fell held him in an unconstitutional
environment and that as a result, another higher risk level inmate, assaulted
him on July 20, 2024.1
1 The Court takes judicial notice that Sheriff Plasse passed away on July 24, 2024.
www.greinerfuneralhome.com/ obituary/John-Plasse.
Case 2:24-cv-00564-JPH-MG Document 22 Filed 12/02/25 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
III. Dismissal of Complaint
Applying 	the 	screening 	standard 	to 	the 	factual 	allegations 	in 	the
complaint, the complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.
Injunctive Relief
Any claim for injunctive relief is dismissed as moot because Mr. Monnett
is no longer confined at the Jail. Jaros v. Illinois Dept. of Corrections, 684 F.3d
667, 670 n. 3 (7th Cir. 2012); Koger v. Bryan, 523 F.3d 789, 804 (7th Cir. 2008)
("once the threat of the act sought to be enjoined dissipates," the claim for
injunctive relief must be dismissed as moot).
Failure to Protect
"[C]onstitutional claims must be addressed under the most applicable
provision." Conyers v. Abitz, 416 F.3d 580, 586 (7th Cir. 2005) (internal citation
omitted). A complaint "gains nothing by attracting additional constitutional
labels." Id. A failure to protect claim "brought by a pretrial detainee arises under
the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, whereas a convicted
inmate's claim arises under the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual
punishment." Thomas v. Dart, 39 F.4th 835, 841 (7th Cir. 2022).
"[T]o 	state 	a 	viable 	failure-to-protect 	claim 	under 	the 	Fourteenth
Amendment, 	a 	pretrial 	detainee 	must 	allege: 	(1) 	the 	defendant 	made 	an
intentional decision regarding the conditions of the plaintiff's confinement; (2)
those conditions put the plaintiff at substantial risk of suffering serious harm;
(3) the defendant did not take reasonable available measures to abate the risk,
Case 2:24-cv-00564-JPH-MG Document 22 Filed 12/02/25 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
even though a reasonable officer in the circumstances would have appreciated
the high degree of risk involved, making the consequences of the defendant's
inaction obvious; and (4) the defendant, by not taking such measures, caused
the plaintiff's injuries." Id.
Any failure to protect claims against the defendants are dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because neither
defendant 	is 	alleged 	to 	have 	made 	an 	intentional 	decision 	regarding 	Mr.
Monnett's placement in a higher risk cell block.
Monell Claim
Mr. Monnett alleges that the Jail was "over 80% capacity." Dkt. 1 at 3. It
is unclear whether he means the Jail was 80% full or the Jail was 80% over
maximum capacity. He alleges that the overcrowding was unconstitutional, and
it caused another inmate, a convicted inmate from the Indiana Department of
Correction, to assault him on July 20, 2024.
The Court has liberally construed the complaint as attempting to bring a
claim under Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Serv. of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658
(1978). To state a claim under Monell, a plaintiff must allege facts that would
allow the Court to draw a reasonable inference that: (1) he has suffered the
deprivation of a constitutional right; and (2) that an official custom or policy
implemented, 	practiced, 	or 	enforced 	by 	the 	Sheriff 	caused 	the 	harm 	that
resulted. See Glisson v. Ind. Dept. of Corrections, 849 F.3d 372, 379 (7th Cir.
2017) ("The critical question under Monell….is whether a municipal … policy or
custom gave rise to the harm (that is, caused it), or if instead the harm resulted
Case 2:24-cv-00564-JPH-MG Document 22 Filed 12/02/25 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
from the acts of the entity's agents."). "The central question is always whether
an official policy, however expressed….caused the constitutional deprivation." Id.
Mr. Monnett has not alleged facts sufficient to infer that overcrowding of the Jail
caused another inmate to assault him.
Because the Court has been unable to identify a viable claim for relief
against any defendant, the complaint is subject to dismissal.
IV. Conclusion and Opportunity to Amend
The dismissal of the complaint will not in this instance lead to the
dismissal of the action at present. "The usual standard in civil cases is to allow
defective pleadings to be corrected, especially in early stages, at least where
amendment would not be futile." Abu-Shawish v. United States, 898 F.3d 726,
738 (7th Cir. 2018). In the interest of justice, the Court will allow Mr. Monnett
to amend his complaint if, after reviewing this Court's order, he believes that he
can state a viable claim for relief, consistent with the allegations he has already
made. See Tate v. SCR Med. Transp., 809 F.3d 343, 346 (7th Cir. 2015) ("We've
often said that before dismissing a case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) a judge
should give the litigant, especially a pro se litigant, an opportunity to amend his
complaint."); Luevano v. Wal-Mart, 722 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir. 2013).
Mr. Monnett shall have through January 5, 2026, to file an amended
complaint.
The amended complaint must (a) contain a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief, which is sufficient to
provide the defendant with fair notice of the claim and its basis; (b) include a
Case 2:24-cv-00564-JPH-MG Document 22 Filed 12/02/25 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
demand for the relief sought; and (c) identify what injury he claims to have
suffered and what persons are responsible for each such injury. In organizing
his complaint, Mr. Monnett must use the Court's complaint form. See Local Rule
8-1 (requiring pro se plaintiffs to use the clerk-provided form for claims under
42 U.S.C. § 1983). The clerk is directed to include a copy of the prisoner civil
rights complaint form along with Mr. Monnett's copy of this Order.
Any amended complaint should have the proper case number, 2:24-cv-
0564-JPH-MG and the words "Amended Complaint" on the first page. The
amended complaint will completely replace the original. See Beal v. Beller, 847
F.3d 897, 901 (7th 	Cir. 2017) ("For pleading purposes, once an 	amended
complaint is filed, the original complaint drops out of the picture."). Therefore, it
must set out every defendant, claim, and factual allegation the plaintiff wishes
to pursue in this action.
If Mr. Monnett files an amended complaint, it will be screened pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). If no amended complaint is filed by the given deadline, this
action will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, without further notice or opportunity to show cause.
Mr. Monnett's motion for counsel, dkt. 18, will be ruled on by separate
order.
SO ORDERED.
Date: 12/2/2025
Case 2:24-cv-00564-JPH-MG Document 22 Filed 12/02/25 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
Distribution:
DYLAN E. MONNETT
00096387
PARKE COUNTY JAIL
458 West Strawberry Rd.
Rockville, IN 47872
Case 2:24-cv-00564-JPH-MG Document 22 Filed 12/02/25 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>