ROSS v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
WILLIAM E. ROSS, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 2:25-cv-00260-JPH-MJD
)
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS,
)
)
KEITH VINARDI, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT
On June 5, 2025, Plaintiff William Ross, an inmate at Wabash Valley
Correctional Facility, initiated this action with a complaint that named 13 mostly
anonymous 	defendants 	and 	alleging 	claims 	under 	the 	Americans 	with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"), the Rehabilitation Act ("RA"), and the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Dkt. 1. On October 28, 2025, the Court
screened the complaint and determined that it did not state any due process
claims or any claims for damages against any individual defendants, but that
Mr. Ross could pursue injunctive relief under the RA against the Wabash Valley
warden in his official capacity and a claim for damages under the RA against the
Indiana Department of Correction ("IDOC"). Dkt. 12. On June 23, 2026, Mr. Ross
filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint. For the reasons below,
that motion is DENIED. Dkt. [47].
Case 2:25-cv-00260-JPH-MJD Document 72 Filed 10/09/26 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
I. Background
Mr. Ross's right arm is amputated below the elbow. Dkt. 1 at 1. His original
complaint alleged that he was being denied reasonable accommodations for his
disability with respect to the time he was allowed to spend in the Wabash Valley
law library. Id. at 4-6. He also alleged that he was improperly terminated from
his job as a law library clerk. Id. at 5, 7. The complaint purported to list a total
of 13 defendants, none of them identified by name but some by title, such as the
Wabash 	Valley 	warden. 	The 	relief 	Mr. 	Ross 	sought 	was 	punitive 	and
compensatory damages, an injunction requiring that he be given additional time
in the law library for typing legal work and a keyboard specifically designed for
upper extremity amputees, and that he "be accommodated with the Correct
Medical and Physical Disability Classification Codes." Id. at 7.
When screening the complaint, the Court concluded that the only apparent
due process claims Mr. Ross was attempting to raise were related to how his
grievances were handled regarding his accommodation requests, but that this
was insufficient to state a due process claim against any defendant. Dkt. 12 at
5. The Court next 	concluded that none of the individual 	defendants were
amenable to suit under either the ADA or RA. Id. The Court also dismissed any
claims under the ADA because they were duplicative of any claims under the RA.
Id. at 5-6. Finally, the Court determined that Mr. Ross could, under the RA, seek
Case 2:25-cv-00260-JPH-MJD Document 72 Filed 10/09/26 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
damages against the IDOC and injunctive relief against the Wabash Valley
warden in his official capacity.1
On November 7, 2025, Mr. Ross filed his first motion to supplement his
complaint, plus a motion requesting that the Court reconsider the screening
order with respect to dismissal of the due process claims. Dkts. 15, 16. The
motion to supplement did not include a complete proposed supplemental or
amended complaint. The motion itself named five individual healthcare providers
and Pendleton staffers whom Mr. Ross believed were involved in assigning him
an improper disability classification and whom he wanted to add as defendants
in this case. Mr. Ross asserted they were involved in a "conspiracy" to "deny Ross
who is a qualified inmate with disability ADA services by denying him accurate
classification coding to reflect his disabilities." Dkt. 16 at 7. The motion did not
contain any specific accommodations Mr. Ross was seeking in addition to those
in his original complaint, i.e. related to his law library use and access.
On April 1, 2026, the Court denied these motions. Dkt. 37. First, to the
extent 	Mr. 	Ross 	was 	asserting 	a 	due 	process 	right 	to 	a 	certain 	disability
classification, the Court noted that there was not such a right under law. Id. at
3-4. Second, in addition to Mr. Ross not attaching a full proposed amended or
supplemental complaint to his motion to supplement, the Court concluded "[i]t
would be futile to allow Mr. Ross to amend his complaint to add new defendants
1 Frank Vanihel was the original named defendant as Wabash Valley warden, but he
has since been replaced by Keith Vinardi.
Case 2:25-cv-00260-JPH-MJD Document 72 Filed 10/09/26 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
and claims" and that his "remedies for alleged discrimination based on his
disabilities lie under the RA, not the Due Process Clause." Id. at 4.
On June 16, Mr. Ross filed an amended complaint. Dkt. 45. On June 23,
he filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint, with an attached
proposed amended or supplemental complaint. Dkt. 47. The proposed amended
or supplemental complaint lists a total of 28 named defendants, including the
IDOC itself, Centurion, and numerous Wabash Valley staffers and medical
personnel. Dkt. 47-2 at 1-2. It states that in addition to Mr. Ross's partially-
amputated arm, he has a torn rotator cuff, a dislocated collar bone, degenerative
bone disease, arthritic hips and fingers, a leaky bladder, and several mental
health problems. It also lists 19 life functions that Mr. Ross allegedly has
difficulty performing because of those problems, including "sleeping," "walking,"
"standing," "breathing," "thinking," "communicating," and "working." Id. at 6. Mr.
Ross discusses various accommodations he believes he was improperly denied,
such as not being provided with another inmate who could act as a "porter" for
him, that he did not receive a special storage box that would be easier for him to
use as an amputee, not receiving treatment for his PTSD, and that he was
improperly classified at a "C" level for mental health purposes.
The complaint then lists 21 claims against the defendants, including
among other things that they failed to provide reasonable accommodations "for
the preparation and filing of legal documents"; that he "was hired and fired in
violation of ADA and RA regulations"; that Dr. Samuel Byrd and Centurion have
been deliberately indifferent to Mr. Ross's serious medical needs with respect to
Case 2:25-cv-00260-JPH-MJD Document 72 Filed 10/09/26 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
his leaky bladder, the need for staples in his inguinal region, and his broken
prosthetic arm; that Centurion has been deliberately indifferent with respect to
addressing his mental health needs; and generally that various individuals have
acted improperly with respect to not assigning him an appropriate disability
code.
Mr. Ross indicates that he now seeks the following relief: under "Housing,"
he requests that he be placed in a particular cell that is adjacent to a handicap-
accessible shower, that the cell be painted in a particular way, and that he be
provided with "a helper/aid of his choice." Id. at 23. Under "Programs," he
requests "accommodations to pursue a doctorate or master of divinity and a
bachelor in paralegal studies;" that he be given back his job as a library clerk,
subject to him requiring accommodations for his mental health; and that he be
provided with a laptop computer to use in his cell. Id. Under "Services," he
requests that all of his healthcare be provided at a VA hospital, plus his original
request that he be given extra time in the law library and a specialized keyboard
and mouse. Id. at 24.
On September 16, the Court denied Mr. Ross's preliminary injunction
motion, 	which 	had 	sought 	immediate 	implementation 	of 	his 	requests 	for
additional time in the law library and provision of a specialized keyboard. Dkt.
65.
II. Discussion
Rule 15(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: "On motion
and reasonable notice, the court may, on just terms, permit a party to serve a
Case 2:25-cv-00260-JPH-MJD Document 72 Filed 10/09/26 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
supplemental pleading setting out any transaction, occurrence, or event that
happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d).
In other words, this Rule is a mechanism for "bringing the case up to date." Saint
Anthony Hosp. v. Whitehorn, 132 F.4th 962, 979 (7th Cir. 2025) (citing 6A Fed.
Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1504 § 1504 Supplemental Pleadings—In General). "The
district court has 'substantial discretion' to permit or deny leave to amend or
supplement." Paragon Component Sys., LLC v. Qualtim, Inc., No. 25-CV-170-
WMC, 2026 WL 1759274, at *3 (W.D. Wis. June 18, 2026) (citing cases). The
Court may consider, among other things, whether the facts alleged in the
supplemental complaint are sufficiently related to the original complaint and
whether the moving party unduly delayed the motion. Id.
Here, Mr. Ross's proposed amended or supplemental complaint would
vastly expand the scope of this lawsuit. Originally, it was focused on Mr. Ross's
desire to receive certain accommodations for his physical disability—his partially
amputated arm—with respect to his law library access. Now, Mr. Ross lists
numerous 	additional 	alleged 	disabilities—physical 	and 	mental—and 	alleged
impacts that go far beyond his ability to perform legal research and draft
documents. He seeks numerous additional accommodations beyond law library
access, including placement in a specific cell, being given a helper of his choice,
that he have access to certain educational programming, and that he receive
medical care at a VA hospital. Moreover, an amended or supplemental complaint
such as Mr. Ross proposes would add unrelated claims against many new
Case 2:25-cv-00260-JPH-MJD Document 72 Filed 10/09/26 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
defendants, which would be inappropriate under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
18 and 20. See Estrada v. Reed, 346 F. App'x 87, 89–90 (7th Cir. 2009).
In short, it would not be appropriate to allow Mr. Ross to now add a wide
variety of allegations, claims, and defendants that were not mentioned in and
are insufficiently related to his original complaint.
III. Conclusion
Mr. Ross's motion for leave to file an amended or supplemental complaint
is DENIED. Dkt. [47]. This Order is without prejudice to Mr. Ross filing a new,
separate lawsuit if he wishes, regarding the claims that will not proceed in this
case, subject to the filing fee and screening requirements of the Prison Litigation
Reform Act. The motions at dockets 69 and 70 remain under advisement.
SO ORDERED.
Distribution:
All ECF-registered counsel of record via email
WILLIAM E. ROSS
863230
WABASH VALLEY - CF
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility
Electronic Service Participant – Court Only
Date: 10/9/2026
Case 2:25-cv-00260-JPH-MJD Document 72 Filed 10/09/26 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>