PUGH v. STORM et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
MATTHEW PUGH, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:25-cv-01890-SEB-MG
)
LARRY STORM, 	)
MEREDITH, 	)
GEO GROUP, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
Order Screening Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings
Plaintiff Matthew Pugh is a prisoner currently incarcerated at Westville Correctional
Facility. On September 18, 2025, Mr. Pugh filed this civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging
that defendants violated his constitutional rights while he was incarcerated at New Castle
Correctional Facility ("New Castle"). Since then, Mr. Pugh has filed several discovery motions.
After discussing Mr. Pugh's motions for discovery, the Court screens his complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c).
I. 	Motions for Discovery
Mr. Pugh has filed several motions seeking discovery. Mr. Pugh's motion to subpoena, dkt.
13, asks the Court to issue a subpoena to nonparty Rhonda Smith; his motion for interrogatories,
dkt. 15, asks the Court to forward questions to employees at New Castle; his motion to produce
documents, 16, seeks data from his tablet from Viapath Technologies; and his motion for
telephonic status conference, dkt. 18, asks the Court to schedule a status conference because he
has been transferred to Westville Correctional Facility. The Court denies the above motions, dkts.
Case 1:25-cv-01890-SEB-MG Document 24 Filed 01/09/26 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
[13], [15], [16], and [18], as premature.1 Because Mr. Pugh is incarcerated, the Court must screen
his complaint before it can be served on the defendants, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, so attempts at
discovery are premature. If his claims survive screening, the defendants will be served, appear,
and answer. At that point, the Court will issue appropriate orders governing discovery in this case,
and Mr. Pugh can serve the defendants' counsel with discovery requests asking for the information
he seeks or, if necessary, request the documents from a non-party via subpoena.
II. 	Screening
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
standard than pleadings drafted by lawyers." Cesal v. Moats, 851 F.3d 714, 720 (7th Cir. 2017).
1 Mr. Pugh's motions for discovery do not include any information suggesting that he needs the
requested discovery before his complaint is screened and the defendants answer—for example, so that he
can identify missing defendants before the expiration of the statute of limitations. If that is the case, he may
file a renewed motion explaining why he needs the discovery before his complaint is screened and
defendants appear.
Case 1:25-cv-01890-SEB-MG Document 24 Filed 01/09/26 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
A. The Complaint
Mr. Pugh makes the following allegations against Lt. Larry Storm, Ofc. Meredith, and the
GEO Group, which the Court accepts as true at the pleading stage. See Lisby v. Henderson, 74
F.4th 470, 472 (7th Cir. 2023).
In July of 2025, Lt. Larry Storm "automatically found" Mr. Pugh guilty of violating the
Indiana Department of Correction's Code of Conduct and sanctioned him with six months in
restrictive housing as well as phone and commissary restrictions. Dkt. 1 at 3. Mr. Pugh appealed
the decision on August 1. Id. On August 4, Lt. Storm looked through Mr. Pugh's mail, viewed the
appeals, and altered the original conduct reports. Id. As a result, Mr. Pugh's appeals were denied,
and he was placed in department-wide restrictive housing for the next year. Id. at 4. Mr. Pugh
alleges that Lt. Storm routinely throws away mail and grievances. Id. at 4–5.
During this time, Lt. Storm knew that Mr. Pugh's mattress had fecal waste on it and Mr.
Pugh filed grievances related to the issue. Id. at 4. Yet, Lt. Storm refused to replace it. After Mr.
Pugh had to sleep on the mattress for a month, a non-party officer finally replaced it. Id. Mr. Pugh
also told Lt. Storm and filed grievances about an issue with ants, but Lt. Storm did not do anything.
Id.
On August 11, Mr. Pugh went to Lt. Storm's office to retrieve his legal mail. Id. at 5. Lt.
Storm told Mr. Pugh, "if you know what's good for your well being you won't keep filing reports
on our facility and the other staff members." Id. (cleaned up).
On August 21, Lt. Storm told Sgt. Titus via email to not give Mr. Pugh a blanket because
he had allegedly threatened staff. Id. at 4. That same day, a sewage drain overflow caused sewage
to enter Mr. Pugh's dormitory, reaching his cell. Id. Mr. Pugh told Ofc. Meredith that he needed
Case 1:25-cv-01890-SEB-MG Document 24 Filed 01/09/26 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
cleaning supplies to clean his cell, but Ofc. Meredith declined to give him the supplies when he
passed out supplies to the rest of the dorm. Id.
Overall, Mr. Pugh alleges that the defendants' retaliatory actions are motivated by his status
as a sex offender and by the fact that he has filed several complaints about conditions of
confinement. Id. Mr. Pugh seeks monetary damages and for Lt. Storm to be fired. Id. at 6.
B. 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.
Dismissed Claims
First, the Court dismisses any due process claims against Lt. Storm for finding Mr. Pugh
guilty of violating the IDOC's code of conduct. The Fourteenth Amendment provides that state
officials shall not "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
U.S. Const. amend. XIV. Here, Mr. Pugh's complaint does not appear to allege that the imposed
sanctions deprived Mr. Pugh of "life, liberty, or property." Without more information, the Court
cannot infer that Mr. Pugh's placement in restrictive housing deprived him of liberty. The
Constitution does not create a due process liberty interest in avoiding transfer within a correctional
facility or remaining in the general prison population. See Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 222
(2005); Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995). Instead, incarcerated people are entitled to
due process protections only when the more restrictive conditions pose an "atypical and significant
hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life." Sandin, 515 U.S. at 484.
After Sandin, incarcerated people do not have a liberty interest in avoiding short-term transfer to
segregation for administrative, protective, or investigative purposes, even when they are subjected
Case 1:25-cv-01890-SEB-MG Document 24 Filed 01/09/26 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
to harsher conditions as a result. See, e.g., Townsend v. Fuchs, 522 F.3d 765, 766 (7th Cir. 2008);
Lekas v. Briley, 405 F.3d 602, 608–09 (7th Cir. 2005).
Furthermore, if the sanctions deprived Mr. Pugh of good time credit or credit earning class,
then the Heck v. Humphrey doctrine might bar his claims regarding the disciplinary proceeding.
"[I]n order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for
other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid,
a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been [overturned]"). Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994). See Easterling v. Siarnicki, 435 F. App'x 524, 526 (7th
Cir. 2011)) ("Heck bars a plaintiff's suit under § 1983 where 'a judgment in favor of the plaintiff
would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence' unless the plaintiff can show
that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated). Here, if Mr. Pugh's due process
claims were successful, it would necessarily imply that the disciplinary conviction was invalid.
Second, the Court dismisses Mr. Pugh's claims against GEO Group. Private corporations
acting under color of state law, such as GEO Group, are treated as municipalities for purposes of
§ 1983 and can be sued when their actions violate the Constitution. Dean v. Wexford Health
Sources, Inc., 18 F.4th 214, 235 (7th Cir. 2021) (citing Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S.
658 (1978)). To state a § 1983 claim against a municipality, a plaintiff must allege that the
municipality, "either through an express policy or an implied policy of inaction, took 'deliberate'
action that was the 'moving force' behind a constitutional injury." Taylor v. Hughes, 26 F. 4th 419,
435 (7th Cir. 2022) (quoting Bd. Of County Comm'rs of Bryan County v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397,
403–407 (1997)). Here, Mr. Pugh has not identified a GEO Group policy or widespread practice
that violated his rights. Thus, any claims against GEO Group must be dismissed.
Case 1:25-cv-01890-SEB-MG Document 24 Filed 01/09/26 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
Claims That Will Proceed
Mr. Pugh's First Amendment retaliation claims against Lt. Storm and Ofc. Meredith may
proceed on the basis that they retaliated against him for filing grievances. See Watkins v. Kasper,
599 F.3d 791, 794–95 (7th Cir. 2010).
Mr. Pugh's Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim against Lt. Storm may
proceed on the basis that he made Mr. Pugh sleep on a soiled mattress for a month.
Mr. Pugh's Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim against Ofc. Meredith
may proceed on the basis that he intentionally denied Mr. Pugh cleaning products to remove the
sewage in his cell.
This summary of claims includes all the viable claims identified by the Court. All other
claims have been dismissed. If the plaintiff believes that additional claims were alleged in the
complaint, but not identified by the Court, he shall have through February 9, 2026, in which to
file a motion to reconsider the screening order.
III. 	Conclusion and Service of Process
The Court denies as premature the motions for discovery, dkts. [13], [15], [16], and [18].
The following claims are proceeding in this action: First Amendment retaliation claims and
Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claims against Lt. Storm and Ofc. Meredith. All
other claims have been dismissed. The clerk is directed to terminate GEO Group as a defendant
on the docket.
The clerk is directed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to Lt. Larry Storm
and Ofc. Meredith in the manner specified by Rule 4(d). Process shall consist of the [amended]
complaint filed on September 18, 2025, dkt. [1], applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request
for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), and this Order.
Case 1:25-cv-01890-SEB-MG Document 24 Filed 01/09/26 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
Nothing in this Order prohibits the filing of a proper motion pursuant to Rule 12 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: ________________
Distribution:
MATTHEW PUGH
200550
WESTVILLE - CF
WESTVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Inmate Mail/Parcels
5501 South 1100 West
WESTVILLE, IN 46391
Lt. Larry Storm
New Castle Correctional Facility
1000 Van Nuys Road
New Castle, IN 47362
Ofc. Meredith
New Castle Correctional Facility
1000 Van Nuys Road
New Castle, IN 47362
Courtesy copy to:
Adam Garth Forrest
BBFCS ATTORNEYS
27 North Eighth Street
Richmond, IN 47374
The GEO Group, Inc.
New Castle Correctional Facility
1000 Van Nuys Road
New Castle, IN 47362
The GEO Group, Inc.
c/o CORPORATE CREATIONS NETWORK INC.
8520 Allison Pointe Blvd #220
Indianapolis, IN, 46250
_______________________________
SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
1/9/2026
Case 1:25-cv-01890-SEB-MG Document 24 Filed 01/09/26 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>