OWENS v. VIGO COUNTY SHERIFF et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
ANTONIO R. OWENS, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 2:25-cv-00188-JPH-MJD
)
VIGO COUNTY SHERIFF, 	)
DEREK FELL, 	)
CASEY LEE, 	)
STEPHANIE EDWARDSON, 	)
CHELSEA LEFLEUR, 	)
CHARLIE FUNK, 	)
EMILY MEADOWS, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER SCREENING AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS
Plaintiff Antonio Owens is a prisoner currently incarcerated at Indiana
State Prison. On April 14, 2025, Mr. Owens filed this civil action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, alleging that Defendants violated his constitutional rights while he was
incarcerated 	at 	Vigo 	County 	Jail 	("the 	Jail"). 	The 	Court's 	screening 	order
dismissed Mr. Owens's complaint and directed him to file an amended complaint.
Dkt. 18. On November 10, Mr. Owens filed an amended complaint, which the
Court now screens pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c). Dkt. 19.
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
Case 2:25-cv-00188-JPH-MJD Document 20 Filed 01/09/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
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).
II. The Amended Complaint
Mr. Owens makes the following allegations against Vigo County Sheriff
Derek Fell, Casey Lee, Stephanie Edwardson, Chelsea Lefleur, Charlie Funk,
Emily Meadows, and Ofc. R. Fields, which the Court accepts as true at the
pleading stage. See Lisby v. Henderson, 74 F.4th 470, 472 (7th Cir. 2023).
On November 5, 2024, Mr. Owens was a pre-trial detainee incarcerated at
the Jail. Dkt. 19 at 1, 3. Following an incident with an officer,1 he was charged
with a disciplinary violation. Id. at 1. Ofc. R. Fields conducted a hearing and,
despite knowing about Mr. Owens's mental health struggles in segregation, he
sanctioned 	Mr. 	Owens 	with 	360 	days 	in 	segregated 	housing. 	Id. 	Being 	in
segregation exacerbated Mr. Owens's mental health problems. Id. Mr. Owens
1 Mr. Owens is currently suing the officer for violating his civil rights in Owens v. Fell
(2:24-cv-00579-JRS-MKK).
Case 2:25-cv-00188-JPH-MJD Document 20 Filed 01/09/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
wrote to Emily Meadows about his sanction and the resulting mental health
difficulties. Id. at 2. Even still, she denied his request for help. Id. Ms. Meadows
told Mr. Owens that her supervisors Casey Lee, Stephanie Edwardson, Charlie
Funk, 	and 	Chelsea 	LeFleur 	refused 	her 	request 	to 	let 	Mr. 	Owens 	out 	of
segregation. Id. Mr. Owens then wrote directly to Ms. Edwardson, but he was
ignored. Id. All in all, the Defendants knew about Mr. Owens's mental health
struggles, but they refused to alleviate his sanction or get him adequate mental
health support while he was in segregation. Id. at 3. As a result, Mr. Owens
suffered from mental anguish from the excessive punishment. Id.
Mr. Owens seeks monetary damages. Id.
III. Discussion of Claims
Applying 	the 	screening 	standard 	to 	the 	factual 	allegations 	in 	the
complaint, the Court dismisses claims against Sheriff Derek Fell. As stated in
the previous screening order, to state a claim under § 1983, Mr. Owens must
allege that each Defendant was personally involved in violating his constitutional
rights. Colbert v. City of Chicago, 851 F.3d 649, 657 (7th Cir. 2017). Specifically,
the plaintiff must allege that each defendant caused the alleged misconduct. Id.
In a § 1983 lawsuit, supervisors, such as sheriffs and jail commanders, cannot
be 'vicariously liable' for their employees' misconduct. Instead, plaintiffs must
allege that the supervisor personally caused the misconduct, or that he "(1)
kn[e]w about the conduct and (2) facilitate[d], approve[d], condone[d], or turn[ed]
a blind eye toward it." Gonzalez v. McHenry County, Ill., 40 F.4th 824, 828 (7th
Cir. 2022). Here, the amended complaint does not make any factual allegations
Case 2:25-cv-00188-JPH-MJD Document 20 Filed 01/09/26 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
against Sheriff Fell, nor does it suggest that Sheriff Fell put him in segregated
housing or deprived him of mental healthcare. Thus, the amended complaint
does not allege that Sheriff Fell was personally involved in violating Mr. Owens's
rights, and the Court must dismiss claims against him.
The following claims may proceed as pled in the amended complaint: (1)
Fourteenth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claims against Casey Lee,
Stephanie Edwardson, Chelsea LeFleur, Charlie Funk, Ofc. R. Fields, and Emily
Meadows 	based 	on 	the 	allegations 	that 	they 	subjected 	Mr. 	Owens 	to
unreasonable conditions in segregated housing; and (2) Fourteenth Amendment
deprivation 	of 	mental 	healthcare 	claims 	against 	Casey 	Lee, 	Stephanie
Edwardson, Chelsea LeFleur, Charlie Funk, Ofc. R. Fields, and Emily Meadows
based on the allegations that they refused to provide adequate mental healthcare
while Mr. Owens was in segregated housing.2
This summary of claims includes all the viable claims identified by the
Court. All other claims have been dismissed.
IV. Conclusion and Service of Process
The following claims are proceeding in this action against Casey Lee,
Stephanie Edwardson, Chelsea LeFleur, Charlie Funk, Ofc. R. Fields, and Emily
Meadows: (1) Fourteenth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claims and (2)
Fourteenth Amendment deprivation of mental healthcare claims. All other claims
have been dismissed. The clerk is directed to terminate "Vigo County Sheriff"
2 Mr. Owens references the Eighth Amendment, but because he was a pretrial
detainee, the Fourteenth Amendment applies to his claims. See Hardeman v. Curran,
933 F.3d 816, 821-22 (7th Cir. 2019).
Case 2:25-cv-00188-JPH-MJD Document 20 Filed 01/09/26 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
and Derek Fell as Defendants on the docket. The clerk is directed to add Ofc.
R. Fields as a Defendant on the docket.
The clerk is directed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process
to Defendants Casey Lee, Stephanie Edwardson, Chelsea LeFleur, Charlie Funk,
Ofc. R. Fields, and Emily Meadows in the manner specified by Rule 4(d). Process
shall consist of the amended complaint filed on November 10, 2025, dkt. [19],
applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of
Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), and this Order.
Nothing in this Order prohibits the filing of a proper motion pursuant to
Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
SO ORDERED.
Distribution:
ANTONIO R. OWENS
109461
INDIANA STATE PRISON
INDIANA STATE PRISON
Inmate Mail/Parcels
One Park Row
MICHIGAN CITY, IN 46360
CASEY LEE
VIGO COUNTY JAIL
600 W. Honey Creek Dr.
Terre Haute, IN 47802
Date: 1/9/2026
Case 2:25-cv-00188-JPH-MJD Document 20 Filed 01/09/26 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
STEPHANIE EDWARDSON VIGO
COUNTY JAIL
600 W. Honey Creek Dr.
Terre Haute, IN 47802
CHELSEA LEFLEUR
VIGO COUNTY JAIL
600 W. Honey Creek Dr.
Terre Haute, IN 47802
CHARLIE FUNK
VIGO COUNTY JAIL
600 W. Honey Creek Dr.
Terre Haute, IN 47802
EMILY MEADOWS
VIGO COUNTY JAIL
600 W. Honey Creek Dr.
Terre Haute, IN 47802
OFC. R. FIELDS
VIGO COUNTY JAIL
600 W. Honey Creek Dr.
Terre Haute, IN 47802
Case 2:25-cv-00188-JPH-MJD Document 20 Filed 01/09/26 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>