HENDERSON v. PEREZ et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
DUKE HENDERSON, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 2:25-cv-00241-JPH-MKK
)
PABLO PEREZ, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING FILING
OF AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff 	Duke 	Henderson 	is 	a 	prisoner 	currently 	incarcerated 	at
Putnamville Correctional Facility ("Putnamville"). He filed this civil action alleging
that he was subjected to retaliation and poor medical care by 12 defendants.
Because Mr. Henderson is incarcerated, this Court must screen the complaint
before service on the defendants. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c). Before doing a
substantive screening of the claims presented, however, the Court assesses
"whether joinder is proper under Rule 20 before considering the merits" of the
claims as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Dorsey v. Varga, 55 F.4th 1094, 1107
(7th Cir. 2022).
I. The Complaint
Mr. Henderson's factual allegations are accepted as true at the pleading
stage. See Lisby v. Henderson, 74 F.4th 470, 472 (7th Cir. 2023). Mr. Henderson
names the following defendants: (1) Dr. Pablo Perez, (2) Nurse Sarah Snowden,
(3) Medical Assistant Alisha Eder, (4) Putnamville Warden Tricia Pretorious,
Case 2:25-cv-00241-JPH-MKK Document 17 Filed 01/30/26 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
(5) Lt. Kirkland, (6) Sgt. Thrasher, (7) Officer Bice, (8) Officer Draughn, (9) Officer
Pebbles, (10) Defendant Laban, (11) Sgt. Fagorie, and (12) John Doe.1
In the fall of 2023, Mr. Henderson was housed in Putnamville's medical
dorm. Officer Pebbles tended to use the inmates' restroom facilities, which Mr.
Henderson and other inmates found odd because officers usually used a staff
restroom.
On August 22, 2023, Mr. Henderson asked Officer Pebbles in a non-
threatening 	way 	why 	he 	used 	the 	inmates' 	restroom, 	and 	Officer 	Pebbles
responded that he could use it whenever he wanted and that if Mr. Henderson
is so bothered, he should write a grievance. Mr. Henderson responded, "Maybe I
will." Dkt. 1 at 4.
Upon 	hearing 	that 	response, 	Officer 	Pebbles 	immediately 	called 	an
emergency signal and wrote a false conduct report stating that Mr. Henderson
threatened to "beat his ass" if Officer Pebbles returned to the inmates' restroom.
Id. 	Mr. 	Henderson 	said 	the 	false 	conduct 	report 	was 	retaliation 	for 	Mr.
Henderson stating he might file a grievance.
Officer Bice was the first to respond to the emergency signal, and he
immediately told Mr. Henderson to cuff up. Mr. Henderson asked why he was
being placed in restraints, and Officer Bice pulled out his OC spray. Officer Bice
also wrote a false conduct report accusing Mr. Henderson of threatening him.
1 Officer Pebbles, Defendant Laban, John Doe, and Sgt. Fagorie are not listed as
defendants in the caption or parties section of the complaint, but Mr. Henderson refers
to them as defendants in the body of the complaint. Construing his complaint liberally,
the Court discusses the claims against them.
Case 2:25-cv-00241-JPH-MKK Document 17 Filed 01/30/26 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Again, Mr. Henderson believed Officer Bice was motivated by retaliatory animus
because he had not threatened Officer Bice; rather, Officer Bice had threatened
him with the pepper spray.
Mr. Henderson was placed in a restraint chair and brought to a segregation
unit. Upon his arrival, Mr. Henderson told Sgt. Thrasher that Mr. Henderson
was not supposed to be in disciplinary segregation due to his disability and his
confinement to a wheelchair. Rather, disabled inmates should be placed in an
isolation cell within the healthcare unit. When Mr. Henderson asked nearby
nurses why he was being sent to segregation, they told him it was up to custody
staff.
During Mr. Henderson's stay in disciplinary segregation between August
22 and August 27, he was exposed to insects, rodents, and terrible heat. Mr.
Henderson 	began 	to 	suffer 	from 	symptoms 	of 	heat 	exhaustion, 	including
delusions, and he raised concerns with both custody staff and medical staff
including Nurse Snowden. The staff would tell Mr. Henderson to drink water and
lay down, or they would ignore him entirely.
At one point, Mr. Henderson was experiencing a delusion when Officer
Laban, Sgt. Fagorie, and Officer John Doe arrived at his cell and ordered him to
cuff up. Mr. Henderson was apparently found on the floor of his cell with a sheet
around his neck. Sgt. Fagorie sprayed Mr. Henderson with OC spray. Officer
Draghn 	and 	Officer 	Doe2 	helped 	the 	officers 	with 	forcefully 	removing 	Mr.
Henderson from his cell. The officers removed Mr. Henderson's clothes and
2 It is not clear if there were two John Doe officers or one at this particular scene.
Case 2:25-cv-00241-JPH-MKK Document 17 Filed 01/30/26 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
placed him in a cell naked without providing him a decontamination shower for
about an hour. Defendants laughed and told him, "You think you had a bad day,
just wait and see how bad of a night you're going to have." Dkt. 1 at 6. The pain
from the OC spray was exacerbated by the fact that Mr. Henderson had open
ulcers.
Mr. Henderson was eventually placed in a suicide watch cell for three days.
During this time, he received no medical care. Mr. Henderson blames Dr. Perez
for his lack of treatment because he is the head medical director at Putnamville
and determines who receives care.
On August 31, Mr. Henderson was removed from the suicide watch cell
and placed back in the cell in the segregated housing unit. That day he received
a conduct report for threatening Officer Pebbles and Officer Bice.
Disciplinary Hearing Board Officer Dinius found Mr. Henderson guilty of
the conduct report and deprived him of 50 days' good credit time and a class
reduction that affected when Mr. Henderson would be eligible for a time cut.
Mr. Henderson's placement in segregation affected his medical condition.
Nurse Snowden, Lt. Kirkland, and Medical Assistant Alisha confiscated Mr.
Henderson's wheelchair despite there being no change in his medical condition
for which it had been prescribed. He believes they confiscated the wheelchair in
retaliation for his grievances for complaining about his medical treatment.
Although Mr. Henderson does not specify what his medical condition is, he states
that he suffers from open and festering ulcers, inflammation, neuropathy, and
recurring viruses that could result in him losing his limbs or sight or even result
Case 2:25-cv-00241-JPH-MKK Document 17 Filed 01/30/26 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
in his death. Medical Defendants Perez, Snowden, and Alisha have refused to
reissue the wheelchair or adjust his medications.
II. Discussion of Claims
District 	courts 	are 	encouraged 	to 	review 	complaints 	to 	ensure 	that
unrelated claims against different defendants do not proceed in a single lawsuit.
See Owens v. Godinez, 860 F.3d 434, 436 (7th Cir. 2017); see also Antoine v.
Ramos, 497 F. App'x 631, 635 (7th Cir. 2012) ("[T]he district court should have
rejected [plaintiff's] attempt to sue 20 defendants in a single lawsuit raising
claims unique to some but not all of them.") (citing Wheeler v. Wexford Health
Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d 680, 683 (7th Cir. 2012)); Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d
950, 952 (7th Cir. 2011). The plaintiff is not permitted to treat a single federal
complaint as a sort of general list of grievances. Mitchell v. Kallas, 895 F.3d 492,
502–03 (7th Cir. 2018) ("Out of concern about unwieldy litigation and attempts
to circumvent the [Prison Litigation Reform Act's] fee requirements, we have
urged 	district 	courts 	and 	defendants 	to 	beware 	of 	'scattershot' 	pleading
strategies.").
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18 and 20 guide the Court's analysis.
Rule 20(a)(2) permits a plaintiff to join defendants in a single action if "(A) any
right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with
respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of
transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common to all
defendants will arise in the action." "[M]ere overlap between defendants is not
enough." Thompson v. Bukowski, 812 F. App'x 360, 363 (7th Cir. 2020).
Case 2:25-cv-00241-JPH-MKK Document 17 Filed 01/30/26 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
Once Rule 20 is satisfied, "[a] party asserting a claim . . . may join, as
independent or alternate claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing
party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a); UWM Student Assoc. v. Lovell, 888 F.3d 854, 863
(7th Cir. 2018) (court must apply Rule 20 before Rule 18). "Thus multiple claims
against a single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be
joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2." George v. Smith, 507 F.3d
605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).
Mr. Henderson's complaint cannot proceed as currently presented. The
complaint violates Rule 20, as it advances unrelated claims against separate
defendants based on separate events. His factual allegations provide a coherent
narrative, but the resulting claims do not "aris[e] out of the same transaction,
occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences." Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A).
Moreover, there is no common question of law or fact that ties together the
various claims against all defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(B).
Here, the Court perceives Mr. Henderson's claims to fall under four groups:
• 	Group 	1: 	Retaliation 	claims 	against 	Officers 	Pebbles 	and 	Bice
concerning the false conduct report and a due process claim against
Officer Dinius as it relates to the conduct hearing resulting in the
loss of credit time;
• 	Group 2: Conditions of confinement and ADA claims against Sgt.
Thrasher, Nurse Snowden and correctional staff3 related to the heat,
3 It is not clear which correctional officers were involved in monitoring the conditions
of Mr. Henderson's cell during this timeframe.
Case 2:25-cv-00241-JPH-MKK Document 17 Filed 01/30/26 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
rodents, and insects while Mr. Henderson, a person with a disability,
was in the segregation cell from August 22 to August 27;
• 	Group 3: An Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Officer
Laban, Sgt. Fagorie, and Officer John Doe related to the OC spray
incident;
• 	Group 4: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference for inadequate
medical care claims and First Amendment retaliation claims against
Dr. Perez, Nurse Snowden, Lt. Kirkland, and Medical Assistant
Alisha 	concerning 	his 	lack 	of 	medical 	care 	while 	he 	was 	in
segregation and the confiscation of his wheelchair (and ongoing
inadequate medical care) in retaliation for filing grievances about his
medical care.
III. 	Dismissal and Deadline to Amend
Where a plaintiff has filed a complaint that violates Rule 20, the Seventh
Circuit has suggested that the best approach is to explain the problem, dismiss
the complaint without prejudice, and provide leave to amend. Dorsey, 55 F.4th
at 1107 ("We suggest a district court faced with misjoined claims begin, as the
district court did here, by striking the complaint, explaining the misjoinder, and
giving the plaintiff at least one chance to fix the problem."). The Court will follow
this approach here.
Accordingly, the complaint is stricken for failure to comply with Rule 20.
Mr. Henderson shall have through February 27, 2026, to file an amended
complaint that complies with Rule 20. If Mr. Henderson wants to pursue claims
Case 2:25-cv-00241-JPH-MKK Document 17 Filed 01/30/26 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
identified in the other groups, he shall file a "motion to sever" that identifies what
other groups of claims he wants to pursue. If so, the Court will open new cases
and will provide Mr. Henderson time to file an amended complaint that relates
to the claims in that specific group. If he does not, any claims that are not in his
amended complaint will be dismissed without prejudice.
If Mr. Henderson files an amended complaint, it will be screened pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). If no amended complaint is filed, this action may be
dismissed without further notice or opportunity to show cause.
Any amended complaint should have the proper case number, 2:25-cv-
00241-JPH-MKK, 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 Mr. Henderson
wishes to pursue in this action.
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
demand for the relief sought; and (c) identify what injury he claims to have
suffered and what persons are responsible for each such injury. The clerk is
directed to include a copy of the prisoner civil rights complaint form along with
Mr. Henderson's copy of this Order, which he must use if he files an amended
Case 2:25-cv-00241-JPH-MKK Document 17 Filed 01/30/26 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
complaint. See Local Rule 8-1 (requiring pro se plaintiffs to use the clerk-
provided form for claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983).
IV. 	Conclusion
Mr. 	Henderson's 	complaint is 	stricken 	because 	it 	contains 	misjoined
claims. Mr. Henderson has through February 27, 2026, to file an amended
complaint that complies with Rule 20. He should also file a separate "motion to
sever" if he wants to pursue other claims in separate actions. Failure to comply
with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. Dorsey, 55 F.4th at
1104 (noting that courts may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute if a
plaintiff fails to comply with valid orders).
SO ORDERED.
Distribution:
DUKE HENDERSON
114427
PUTNAMVILLE - CF
PUTNAMVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Inmate Mail/Parcels
1946 West U.S. Hwy 40
Greencastle, IN 46135
Date: 1/30/2026
Case 2:25-cv-00241-JPH-MKK Document 17 Filed 01/30/26 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>