FREEDLE v. MITCHELL et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
RICHARD FREEDLE, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 2:25-cv-00436-JPH-MKK
)
DANIKA MITCHELL, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW CAUSE
Plaintiff Richard Freedle is an inmate at Vigo County Jail. He filed this civil
action seeking to compel government officials to perform a welfare check on his
wife. Because the plaintiff is a "prisoner," this Court must screen the complaint
before service on the defendants. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c).
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
Case 2:25-cv-00436-JPH-MKK Document 13 Filed 11/18/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
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 Complaint
Mr. Freedle's complaint was filed on September 8, 2025. In it, he states
that "[f]or over 1 ½ months I have been trying to get officers of Vigo County Sheriff
Department to conduct a welfare check on my wife." Dkt. 1 at 1. Specifically, he
apparently has asked officers at the Vigo County Jail – Danika Mitchell and
Emily Meadows – to arrange for such a check to take place and has been ignored.
III. Dismissal of Complaint
Applying the screening standard to the facts alleged in the complaint, the
complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted. Mr. Freedle's complaint has been filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To
state a clam under that statute, there must be a violation of an underlying right
secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. L.P. v. Marian Catholic
High Sch., 852 F.3d 690, 696 (7th Cir. 2017). It is well-settled that there is no
right under the United States Constitution "to governmental aid, even where
such aid may be necessary to secure life, liberty, or property interests of which
the government itself may not deprive the individual." DeShaney v. Winnebago
Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 196 (1989); see also Youngberg v. Romeo,
457 U.S. 307, 317 (1982) ("As a general matter, a State is under no constitutional
duty to provide substantive services for those within its border"). The Court
Case 2:25-cv-00436-JPH-MKK Document 13 Filed 11/18/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
appreciates 	Mr. 	Freedle's 	concern 	for 	his 	wife, 	but 	he 	has 	not 	stated 	an
actionable claim under Section 1983.
Because the Court has been unable to identify a viable claim for relief
against any particular defendant, the complaint is subject to dismissal.
IV. Opportunity to Show Cause
The plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed for each of the reasons set
forth above. 	The plaintiff shall have through December 15, 2025, in which to
show cause why Judgment consistent with this Order should not issue. See
Luevano v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 722 F.3d 1014, 1022 (7th Cir. 2013) ("Without
at least an opportunity to amend or to respond to an order to show cause, an
IFP applicant's case could be tossed out of court without giving the applicant any
timely notice or opportunity to be heard to clarify, contest, or simply request
leave to amend."); Jennings v. City of Indianapolis, 637 F. App'x 954, 954–955
(7th Cir. 2016) ("In keeping with this court's advice in cases such as Luevano . .
. , the court gave Jennings 14 days in which to show cause why the case should
not be dismissed on that basis.").
SO ORDERED.
Distribution:
RICHARD FREEDLE
VIGO COUNTY JAIL
VIGO COUNTY JAIL
600 W. Honey Creek Dr.
Terre Haute, IN 47802
Date: 11/18/2025
Case 2:25-cv-00436-JPH-MKK Document 13 Filed 11/18/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>