HACKNER v. JOHNS et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
DE'SHAY JARNAIZE HACKNER, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 2:25-cv-00377-JPH-MJD
)
STEPHEN C. JOHNS, 	)
LEXISNEXIS DIRECTOR OF
OPERATIONS,
)
)
IDOC COMMISSIONER, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF
FINAL JUDGMENT
Plaintiff De'Shay Hackner is a prisoner at Wabash Valley Correctional
Facility. He filed this civil action alleging that another inmate defamed him by
filing a lawsuit with false accusations and that the IDOC Commissioner violated
his rights under the Constitution by allowing the inmate to defame him. On
February 9, 2026, the Court screened and dismissed Mr. Hackner's complaint
on the basis that any constitutional claims would be barred by the two-year
statute of limitations, and, regardless, Mr. Hackner had failed to state a claim
against the IDOC Commissioner. Dkt. 9. The Court dismissed Mr. Hackner's
state-law claims without prejudice. Id. at 4.
The Court ordered Mr. Hackner to show cause why final judgment should
not enter. Id. at 5. Mr. Hackner responded by filing an amended complaint, which
is now subject to screening. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c).
Case 2:25-cv-00377-JPH-MJD Document 11 Filed 04/01/26 Page 1 of 6 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 Amended Complaint
Mr. Hackner names the following defendants: (1) inmate Stephen Johns,
(2) Officer Harbaugh, (3) PREA Coordinator Jane Doe, (4) Miami Correctional
Facility Warden Hyatte, and (5) Director of Operation, Lexis Nexis.
The facts in the amended complaint are based on the same events that
occurred in the original complaint. Mr. Hackner alleges that Inmate Johns falsely
accused Mr. Hackner of sexually assaulting him on March 21, 2020, while they
were housed at Miami Correctional Facility. Inmate Johns told Officer Harbaugh
Case 2:25-cv-00377-JPH-MJD Document 11 Filed 04/01/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
about the incident, but Officer Harbaugh did not report the incident to the PREA
investigator for it to be thoroughly investigated. PREA Investigator Doe and
Warden Hyatte failed to conduct an adequate investigation into the alleged
assault. Mr. Hackner believes the incident was not thoroughly investigated
because he is an African American inmate with ties to a security threat group
("STG"), and Inmate Johns is white and identifies as gay, so investigators unfairly
assumed that Mr. Hackner was obviously an aggressor. As a result of the shoddy
investigation, Mr. Johns was able to file a lawsuit about the false allegations in
which he identifies Mr. Hackner, and that lawsuit appears on Lexis Nexis. Mr.
Hackner has experienced stress and embarrassment due to the false accusation.
III. Dismissal of Complaint
Mr. Hackner seeks to sue the defendants for violations of his right to equal
protection under the Fourteenth Amendment and for state law torts including
defamation and intentional infliction of emotionally distress. But, similar to his
first complaint, any constitutional claim would be barred by the statute of
limitations.
Suits under § 1983 use the statute of limitations and tolling rules that
states employ for personal-injury claims. In Indiana, the applicable statute of
limitations period is two years. See Richards v. Mitcheff, 696 F.3d 635, 637 (7th
Cir. 2012); Ind. Code § 34–11–2–4. "Although untimeliness is an affirmative
defense, a complaint can be dismissed sua sponte if a valid affirmative defense
is so plain from the face of the complaint that the suit is frivolous." Baldwin
Case 2:25-cv-00377-JPH-MJD Document 11 Filed 04/01/26 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
v. Raemisch, 788 F. App'x 390, 392 (7th Cir. 2019) (citing Muhammad-Ali v. Final
Call, Inc., 832 F.3d 755 (7th Cir. 2016)).
Mr. Hackner's original complaint alleges that the relevant events unfolded
in February 2021. In his amended complaint, he alleges that the events occurred
in March 2020. Mr. Hackner does not explain the discrepancy. Nor does he
acknowledge that the Court dismissed his federal claims as being barred by the
statute of limitations. Thus, he does not argue that he is entitled to tolling of the
statute of limitations, and no basis for tolling is evident to the Court. Accordingly,
this claim is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. Cannon v. Newport, 850 F.3d 303, 307-08 (7th Cir. 2017).
Also, Mr. Hackner has failed to state a viable Fourteenth Amendment claim
against Officer Harbaugh, Jane Doe, or Warden Hyatte. To state an equal
protection claim, Mr. Hackner must allege that (1) he was a member of a
protected class, (2) he was treated differently from a similarly situated member
of 	an 	unprotected 	class, 	and 	(3) 	the 	defendants 	were 	motivated 	by 	a
discriminatory purpose. Alston v. City of Madison, 853 F.3d 901, 906 (7th Cir.
2017). Here, Mr. Hackner does not allege that he was treated differently from a
similarly situated member of an unprotected class. Although he is Black and
Inmate Johns is white, he is not in the same position as Inmate Johns. That is,
Mr. Hackner does not allege that he was the victim of a sexual assault and that
his claim was not treated seriously. Nor does he allege that other white inmates
who are accused of sexual assault have had their rights taken more seriously to
Case 2:25-cv-00377-JPH-MJD Document 11 Filed 04/01/26 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
avoid the harm of a false accusation. Accordingly, any equal protection claim is
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Any claim that Jane Doe failed to conduct a proper investigation when
Inmate Johns filed a PREA complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. "[T]hough PREA is a federal law, it does not
create a private cause of action." McRae v. Myers, No. 22-1821, 2023 WL
2423590, at *3 (7th Cir. Mar. 9, 2023), cert. denied. There also is no "freestanding
constitutional right to [a PREA] investigation under § 1983." Bracy v. Tully, No.
1:22-CV-827, 2022 WL 3229325, at *3–4 (E.D. Va. Aug. 10, 2022) (collecting
cases).
Accordingly, Mr. Hackner's constitutional claims are dismissed for failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Because the Court has
dismissed Mr. Hackner's federal constitutional claims, it declines to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law defamation claims. See 42 U.S.C. §
1367(c)(3); Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009); see
also 28 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1367(c) 	("The 	district 	courts 	may 	decline 	to 	exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed
all claims over which it has original jurisdiction . . . . "); Ex rel. Dietchweiler v.
Lucas, 827 F.3d 622, 631 (7th Cir. 2016) (emphasis added) ("Indeed, when the
federal claims are dismissed before trial, there is a presumption that the court
will relinquish jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims."). These claims
are dismissed without prejudice.
Case 2:25-cv-00377-JPH-MJD Document 11 Filed 04/01/26 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
IV. Conclusion
The Court previously provided Mr. Hackner an opportunity to show cause.
It is unnecessary to give him another chance to file an amended complaint, as
any federal claim is clearly barred by the statute of limitations. Accordingly, Mr.
Hackner's federal constitutional claims are dismissed with prejudice for failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. His state claims are dismissed
without prejudice. Final judgment consistent with this Order shall issue by
separate entry.
SO ORDERED.
Distribution:
DE'SHAY JARNAIZE HACKNER
200955
WABASH VALLEY - CF
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility
6908 S. Old US Hwy 41
CARLISLE, IN 47838
Date: 4/1/2026
Case 2:25-cv-00377-JPH-MJD Document 11 Filed 04/01/26 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>