HARTMAN v. ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLP et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
JONATHAN HARTMAN, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:25-cv-02055-TWP-MJD
)
ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES,
LLP,
)
)
CENTURION HEALTH OF INDIANA, LLC, 	)
TISCH THOMPSON, 	)
DEBRA HALL, 	)
ASHLY, 	)
TODD SHIEFEL, 	)
DALTON ALBRECHT, 	)
DENNIS REAGLE, 	)
KYLE MCKINNEY, 	)
CATHLEEN SIMONE, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER SCREENING COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
This matter is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Jonathan Hartman's ("Hartman") Motion
to for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 13) and Motion for Leave to File Third
Amended Complaint (Dkt. 15). Hartman is currently incarcerated at Pendleton Correctional
Facility ("Pendleton"). On October 8, 2025, he initiated this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging the
Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by depriving him of adequate food, hygiene,
and sanitation during a lockdown at Pendleton. (Dkt. 2). Hartman's motion for leave to file a Third
Amended Complaint, is granted, and the Court will now screen the Third Amended Complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c). Hartman's s motion to for leave to file a Second Amended
Complaint is denied as moot.
Case 1:25-cv-02055-TWP-MJD Document 17 Filed 12/16/25 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
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 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 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
The Court accepts Mr. Hartman's factual allegations as true at the pleading stage but not
his legal conclusions. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 ("we must take all of the factual allegations in the
complaint as true," but "we 'are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual
allegation'") (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555)).
Hartman names the following as defendants: (1) Centurion Health of Indiana, LLC
("Centurion"); (2) Aramark Correctional Services, LLC ("Aramark"); (3) Tisch Thompson,
Aramark Food Service Director; (4) S. Robbins, Aramark Dietician; (5) Brandon Pherson,
Aramark Food Service Manager; (6) Nate Pulley, Aramark Food Service Manager; (7) Debra Hall,
Aramark Food Service Supervisor; (8) Lori Fisher, Aramark Food Service Supervisor; (9) Ashly,
Aramark Food Services Supervisor; (10) Todd Shiefel, Aramark Food Service Supervisor; (11)
Case 1:25-cv-02055-TWP-MJD Document 17 Filed 12/16/25 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Dalton Albrecht, Aramark Food Service Supervisor; (12) Dennis Reagle, former Warden of
Pendleton; (13) Lt. Kyle McKinney; (14) Lt. Cathleen Simone; and (15) Johnathan Jackson, Pest
Exterminator. Dkt. 15-1.
Pendleton entered a facility-wide lockdown from around September of 2023 until around
January of 2024 and then again from July of 2024 through August of 2024. Dkt. 15-1, ¶ 84. During
that time, Hartman alleges that he suffered from the following conditions.
i. 	Food Deprivation/Inadequate Food Portions/Unsanitary Food
Pendleton has a contract with Aramark to provide meals for inmates pursuant to a "Master
Menu," where standard meals amount to 2500 to 2800 daily calories. Id., ¶ 96. During lockdowns,
Aramark and its employees, Thompson, Hall, Ashly, Robbins, Fisher, Pherson, Pulley, Shiefel,
and Albrecht, oversaw the routine service of food that did not meet the published dietary
requirements. Id., ¶¶ 97–99. Instead, the lockdown meals were rotten, watered down, unsanitary,
and contaminated. See, generally, id., ¶¶ 81–102. These defendants also served calorically
inadequate meals, even starving Hartman for eleven-day periods. Id., ¶ 97. When inmates such as
Hartman were provided with meals, they were provided with "lockdown meals," which were too
small, did not meet their nutritional requirements, and included rotten and contaminated food. Id.,
¶¶ 89–90. Hartman alleges that these lockdown meals were used to punish him and other inmates.
Id., ¶ 89. Hartman informed Warden Reagle that the meals were inadequate, contaminated, and
rotten, but Warden Reagle either ignored the issue or stated that it "was not [his] problem." Id., ¶
132.
Warden Reagle, Lt. McKinney, and Lt. Simone restricted inmates' access to commissary,
which made it so that Hartman could not purchase food. Id., ¶¶ 126–28, 140. They then denied
Hartman indigent food packets. Id., ¶ 140.
Case 1:25-cv-02055-TWP-MJD Document 17 Filed 12/16/25 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
As a result of the food conditions and deprivation, Hartman starved for eleven days, lost
weight, suffered severe hunger pains and mental distress, as well as other physical conditions such
as increased blood pressure, muscle pain, and fatigue. Id., ¶¶ 97–98.
ii. 	Lack of Access to Hygiene Materials/Unsanitary Conditions
Because commissary was "cut off for months," Hartman could not purchase hygiene items
for himself. Id., ¶¶, 126, 140. Lt. McKinney, and Lt. Simone were responsible for providing
hygiene kits to inmates. Id., ¶ 127. However, these defendants, along with Warden Reagle,
conspired and refused to provide Hartman with one to punish him and retaliate against his
complaints about prison conditions. During this time, Hartman did not have soap or toothpaste and
was only given one towel. Id., ¶¶ 130–34. Hartman's dorm was also infested with mice and
cockroaches. Id., ¶¶ 106–107, 135. Jackson was responsible for extermination, but failed to do so,
in conspiracy with Warden Reagle, Lt. Simone, and Lt. McKinney. Id., ¶¶ 137–38. Hartman could
not clean because he did not have access to cleaning supplies. Id., ¶ 134. Despite being aware of
these problems and having the power to intervene, Warden Reagle, Lt. Simone, and Lt. McKinney
did not do anything to stop them.
As a result of these conditions, Hartman suffered from sleep deprivation, and other
psychological and physical problems. Id., ¶ 103.
iii. 	Lack of Access to Medical Care
Hartman alleges that Centurion has a practice of denying medical care during lockdowns,
which meant that he could not receive healthcare during the relevant time period. Id., ¶ 144.
Among other things, medical staff would not weigh Hartman so that he could document his weight
loss. Id. ¶ 145. Centurion denied access to medical care in concert with Warden Reagle in order to
punish inmates and hide their suffering.
Case 1:25-cv-02055-TWP-MJD Document 17 Filed 12/16/25 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
iv. 	Retaliation
Hartman filed grievances against Aramark and its employees. Id., ¶ 26. As a result,
Hartman alleges that Aramark and its employees instituted a custom of retaliating against him by
serving unsanitary and nutritionally inadequate food. Id. Hartman alleges that the Aramark
Defendants' above-described actions were designed to retaliate against him for filing these
grievances. Id., ¶¶ 116–21.
Hartman also filed grievances against Jackson and Warden Reagle about pest infestation
and Aramark's practices. Id., ¶¶ 78, 156. Hartman alleges that these defendants, along with Lt.
Simone and Lt. McKinney, conspired with Aramark to deprive him of nutrition and hygiene during
the lockdown in retaliation for his grievances. Id., ¶¶ 156–57.
v. 	Relief
Hartman seeks declaratory relief, compensatory and punitive damages, as well as any just
relief.
III. Discussion of Claims
Applying the screening standard to the factual allegations in the complaint, the following
claims shall proceed as pled in the Third Amended Complaint:
• 	Eighth 	Amendment 	conditions-of-confinement 	claims 	against 	Warden 	Reagle, 	Lt.
McKinney, Lt. Simone, Jackson, Thompson, Robbins, Pulley, Pherson, Hall, Fisher,
Ashley, Shiefel, Albrecht, and Aramark. Eighth Amendment claims against Aramark shall
proceed under the theory recognized in Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978).
• 	Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to medical needs claims against Warden Reagle
and Centurion. Eighth Amendment claims against Centurion will proceed under the Monell
theory.
Case 1:25-cv-02055-TWP-MJD Document 17 Filed 12/16/25 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
• 	First Amendment retaliation claims against Warden Reagle, Lt. McKinney, Lt. Simone,
Jackson, Thompson, Robbins, Pulley, Pherson, Hall, Fisher, Ashley, Shiefel, and Albrecht.
All other claims are dismissed.
IV. Conclusion and Service of Process
Hartman's Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint, Dkt. [15], is GRANTED,
and the proposed amended complaint, (Dkt. 15-1), is treated as the operative complaint. The clerk
is directed to re-docket the proposed amended complaint at Dkt. 15-1 as the Third Amended
Complaint as of the date of this order.
Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint, Dkt. [13], is DENIED AS MOOT.
The claims described above are proceeding in this action. All other claims have been
dismissed. The clerk is directed to add Centurion Health of Indiana, LLC, S. Robbins, Nate
Pulley, Brandon Pherson, and Johnathan Jackson, as defendants on the docket.
The clerk is directed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to the defendants
in the manner specified by Rule 4(d). Process shall consist of the Third Amended Complaint, Dkt.
[15-1], 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 Centurion electronically.
The clerk is directed to serve the IDOC employees electronically.
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: 12/16/2025
Case 1:25-cv-02055-TWP-MJD Document 17 Filed 12/16/25 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
Distribution:
JONATHAN HARTMAN
198454
PENDLETON - CF
PENDLETON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Electronic Service Participant – Court Only
Electronic service to Indiana Department of Correction:
Warden Dennis Reagle
Lt. Kyle McKinney
Lt. Cathleen Simone
Johnathan Jackson
(All at Pendleton Correctional Facility)
Electronic service to Centurion
Aramark Correctional Services, LLC
C/O CT Corporation System
334 North Senate Ave.
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Tisch Thompson
Aramark Correctional Services, LLC
C/O CT Corporation System
334 North Senate Ave.
Indianapolis, IN 46204
S. Robbins
Aramark Correctional Services, LLC
C/O CT Corporation System
334 North Senate Ave.
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Nate Pulley
Aramark Correctional Services, LLC
C/O CT Corporation System
334 North Senate Ave.
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Brandon Pherson
Aramark Correctional Services, LLC
C/O CT Corporation System
334 North Senate Ave.
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Case 1:25-cv-02055-TWP-MJD Document 17 Filed 12/16/25 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
Debra Hall
Aramark Correctional Services, LLC
C/O CT Corporation System
334 North Senate Ave.
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Lori Fisher
Aramark Correctional Services, LLC
C/O CT Corporation System
334 North Senate Ave.
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Ashly
Aramark Correctional Services, LLC
C/O CT Corporation System
334 North Senate Ave.
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Todd Shiefel
Aramark Correctional Services, LLC
C/O CT Corporation System
334 North Senate Ave.
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Dalton Albrecht
Aramark Correctional Services, LLC
C/O CT Corporation System
334 North Senate Ave.
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Courtesy copy to:
Christopher Cody
Hume Smith Geddes Green & Simmons, LLP
54 Monument Circle, Suite 400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Case 1:25-cv-02055-TWP-MJD Document 17 Filed 12/16/25 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>