WARREN v. BOOKOUT et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
LARRY WARREN, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:25-cv-00618-JPH-DML
)
CHLOE BOOKOUT Legal Liaison, 	)
DENNIS REAGLE Former Warden, 	)
TRENT ALLEN Current Warden, 	)
ANDREW COLE Deputy Warden, 	)
CHARLIE FOX Deputy Warden, 	)
CHARLENE BURKETT Ombudsman, 	)
CHRISTINA CONYERS Grievance
Supervisor,
)
)
TAYLOR MCCORKLE Administration, 	)
JOSEPH MCCUTCHEON Correctional
Officer,
)
)
JOHN MILLER Correctional Officer,
Sergeant,
)
)
DEBRA WALLEN Former Programs
Director,
)
)
RACHELLE BRUMSFIEL Correctional
Officer,
)
)
CARLOS SAURI Correctional Officer, 	)
JULIA ERNEST DHB Supervisor, 	)
MASON KIERZSNOWSKI Internal
Investigator,
)
)
TONYA ASHBY Unit Team Manager, 	)
KATELYN MCCORKLE Administration, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEVER, SCREENING CLAIMS,
DISMISSING INSUFFICIENT CLAIM,
AND DIRECTING SERVICE OF PROCESS
I. 	Prior Proceedings
In its Order issued July 31, 2025, the Court informed plaintiff Larry
Warren that the claims in his complaint were misjoined. Dkt. 17. The Court
Case 1:25-cv-00618-JPH-DML Document 41 Filed 12/31/25 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
identified the various claims, assigned letters A-I to each group of claims, and
directed Mr. Warren to report which of the claims he wished to pursue in this
lawsuit. Id.
In Mr. Warren's second motion to sever, he reports that he wishes to
pursue Group B claims in this action. The defendants in Group B are Chloe
Bookout (legal liaison), Dennis Reagle (former warden), Andrew Cole (deputy
warden), Charlie Fox (deputy warden), Katelyn McCorkle (administration), Taylor
McCorkle (administration), and Debra Wallen (former programs director). Mr.
Warren's second motion to sever, filed on August 26, 2025, dkt. [23], is granted.
The Court will now screen the claims in Group B.
II. 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
(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
Case 1:25-cv-00618-JPH-DML Document 41 Filed 12/31/25 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
standard than pleadings drafted by lawyers." Cesal v. Moats, 851 F.3d 714, 720
(7th Cir. 2017).
III. The Claims
A plaintiff's factual allegations are accepted as true at the pleading stage.
See Lisby v. Henderson, 74 F.4th 470, 472 (7th Cir. 2023). Mr. Warren alleges
that the defendants in Group B retaliated against him for filing grievances and
lawsuits. Defendants Bookout, T. McCorkle, Wallen, and K. McCorkle falsely
claimed that he passed multiple items to an inmate he was watching as part of
his prison job as a suicide companion. Dkt. 2 at 12. Ms. Wallen, Mr. Warren's
supervisor, gave him a bad work evaluation and terminated him on September
11, 2023. Ms. Wallen told Mr. Warren that defendants Bookout and Reagle had
ordered the termination. Id. at 13. Ms. Bookout falsely claimed that video footage
supported the claim that Mr. Warren had passed items to the inmate on suicide
watch. Id.
Because Mr. Warren was terminated in violation of prison policy,
defendant Fox later agreed to pay Mr. Warren $815.00 for back pay but later
only paid him $100.00. Mr. Warren filed a tort claim for the remaining $715.00,
which prompted Warden Reagle to have a staff member tell Mr. Warren that
Warden Reagle was tired of all the lawsuits and grievances coming out of Mr.
Warren's unit.
A short time after his job termination, Mr. Warren was pulled out of his
housing unit and met by defendants Bookout, K. McCorkle, and Wallen. Id. at
14. All three women surrounded Mr. Warren and Ms. Wallen was wearing her
Case 1:25-cv-00618-JPH-DML Document 41 Filed 12/31/25 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
duty belt containing mace and a stun gun. Mr. Warren considered this to be
harassment, intimidation, and retaliation and a message to stop filing grievances
and lawsuits. Id.
Defendant Cole responded to Mr. Warren's grievance challenging his job
termination by falsely stating, "you were not following the guidelines of a suicide
companion while on duty." Id. Mr. Warren alleges that there was no camera
footage showing him pass items to an inmate on suicide watch. Id. Finally, Ms.
Bookout returned a grievance filed against Warden Reagle for his failure to
properly train his staff how to fill out conduct reports, which stopped the
grievance from moving forward. Id. at 15.
IV. Discussion of Claims
Applying the screening standard to the factual allegations in the
complaint, certain claims are dismissed while other claims shall proceed as
submitted.
There is no stand-alone claim for the loss of Mr. Warren's prison job.
Prisoners have no liberty or property interest in their jobs. See Grady v. Kinder,
799 F. App'x 925, 927 (7th Cir. 2020) ("removal from a prison job does not
implicate liberty or property interests"); Starry v. Oshkosh Corr. Inst., 731 F.
App'x 517, 518 (7th Cir. 2018); Soule v. Potts, 676 F. App'x 585, 586 (7th Cir.
2017) ("The Constitution does not give prisoners any substantive entitlements to
prison employment."). Any claim for unlawful loss of his job is dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Case 1:25-cv-00618-JPH-DML Document 41 Filed 12/31/25 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
"To establish a prima facie case of unlawful retaliation, a plaintiff must
show (1) he engaged in activity protected by the First Amendment; (2) he suffered
a deprivation that would likely deter First Amendment activity in the future; and
(3) 	the 	First 	Amendment 	activity 	was 	at 	least 	a motivating factor 	in 	the
Defendants' decision to take the retaliatory action." Douglas v. Reeves, 964 F.3d
643, 646 (7th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation omitted). The retaliation claims
under the First Amendment shall proceed against defendants Ms. Bookout, Mr.
Reagle, Mr. Cole, Mr. Fox, Katelyn McCorkle, Taylor McCorkle, and Ms. Wallen.
This summary of claims includes all the viable claims identified by the
Court in Group B of the complaint. See dkt. 17. All other claims alleged in the
complaint are dismissed without prejudice. If Mr. Warren believes that
additional claims were alleged as part of Group B, but not identified by the
Court, he shall have through January 19, 2026, in which to file a motion to
reconsider the screening order.
V. Conclusion and Service of Process
The retaliation claims are proceeding against defendants Chloe Bookout,
Dennis Reagle, Andrew Cole, Charlie Fox, Katelyn McCorkle, Taylor McCorkle,
and Debra Wallen.
All other claims have been dismissed without prejudice.
The clerk is directed to terminate Trent Allen, Charlene Burkett,
Christina Conyers, Tonya Ashby, Joseph McCutcheon, John Miller, Rachelle
Brumsfiel, Carlos Sauri, Julia Ernest, and Mason Kierznowski as defendants on
the docket.
Case 1:25-cv-00618-JPH-DML Document 41 Filed 12/31/25 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
The clerk is directed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process
to defendants Chloe Bookout, Dennis Reagle, Andrew Cole, Charlie Fox, Katelyn
McCorkle, Taylor McCorkle, and Debra Wallen in the manner specified by Rule
4(d). Process shall consist of the complaint filed on March 31, 2025, dkt. [2], the
Order Severing Claims, dkt. [17], applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request
for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), and this
Order.
The clerk is directed to serve the Indiana Department of Correction
employees electronically.
Mr. Warren's second motion to sever, filed on August 26, 2025, dkt. [23],
is granted.
SO ORDERED.
Date: 12/31/2025
Case 1:25-cv-00618-JPH-DML Document 41 Filed 12/31/25 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
Distribution:
LARRY WARREN
230853
PENDLETON - CF
PENDLETON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Electronic Service Participant – Court Only
Electronic service to Indiana Department of Correction:
Chloe Bookout
Dennis Reagle
Andrew Cole
Charlie Fox
Katelyn McCorkle
Taylor McCorkle
Debra Wallen
(All at Pendleton Correctional Facility)
Case 1:25-cv-00618-JPH-DML Document 41 Filed 12/31/25 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>