PERKINS v. FAYETTE COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
QUINTON RODEFFER PERKINS, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:25-cv-01124-JPH-TAB
)
FAYETTE COUNTY POLICE
DEPARTMENT,
)
)
JOSH TUDOR, 	)
CLINT BROWN, 	)
FAYETTE COUNTY SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT,
)
)
ZACH JONES, 	)
JOSHUA SPARKS, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED COMPLAINT AND PROVIDING
OPPORTUNITY TO AMEND AGAIN
Plaintiff Quinton Rodeffer Perkins, pro se, was a pretrial detainee at the
Fayette County Jail (the Jail) at times relevant to his complaint. On August 25,
2025, he filed an amended complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the
defendants violated his constitutional rights. Dkt. 15. Because Mr. Perkins 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 an amended 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 amended complaint states a claim, the
Case 1:25-cv-01124-JPH-TAB Document 18 Filed 10/29/25 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
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, an amended 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
The Court accepts Mr. Perkins' 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)). He names four defendants: 1) Josh Tudor, Fayette
Police Officer; 2) Clint Brown, Fayette Police Officer; 3) Joshua Sparks, Fayette
County 	Sheriff's 	Department; 	and 	4) 	Zach 	Jones, 	Fayette 	County 	Sheriff's
Department. He seeks compensatory damages.
Mr. Perkins was arrested on August 23, 2024, and booked into the Jail.
Dkt. 15 at 7. When handcuffed, he was taken into a room and slammed onto the
ground. Id. One sheriff had a knee on Mr. Perkins' neck until he was unable to
breathe while other officers sat on top of him holding him down. Id. The officers
Case 1:25-cv-01124-JPH-TAB Document 18 Filed 10/29/25 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
stripped him naked, forced a pair of jail pants on him, and then strapped him in
a detaining chair for about 3 hours without access to a bathroom. The officers
then laughed at him. Id.
III. Dismissal of Complaint
Applying the screening standard to the facts alleged in the amended
complaint, the amended complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted.
Because 	Mr. 	Perkins 	was 	"a 	pretrial 	detainee, 	his 	conditions-of-
confinement claims arise under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment, which is governed by an objective standard." Kemp v. Fulton Cnty.,
27 F.4th 491, 495 (7th Cir. 2022). To state a violation of due process, a detainee
must allege that the challenged conduct was "objectively unreasonable." Id.
(internal quotation omitted). "[N]egligence is not enough." Id. at 497.
"[I]ndividual liability under § 1983 . . . requires personal involvement in
the alleged constitutional deprivation." Colbert v. City of Chicago, 851 F.3d 649,
657 (7th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation omitted) (citing Wolf-Lillie v. Sonquist, 699
F.2d 864, 869 (7th Cir. 1983) ("Section 1983 creates a cause of action based on
personal liability and predicated upon fault. An individual cannot be held liable
in a § 1983 action unless he caused or participated in an alleged constitutional
deprivation.... 	A 	causal 	connection, 	or 	an 	affirmative 	link, 	between 	the
misconduct complained of and the official sued is necessary.")).
Although the alleged use of force rises to the level of a constitutional
violation, there are no factual allegations against the named defendants. The
Case 1:25-cv-01124-JPH-TAB Document 18 Filed 10/29/25 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
amended complaint does not describe which sheriff's department defendant did
what when. In addition, there are no allegations against any police officers.
Therefore, the claims against all defendants are dismissed for failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Because the Court has been unable to identify a viable claim for relief
against any defendant, the amended complaint is subject to dismissal.
IV. Opportunity to File a Second Amended Complaint
The dismissal of the amended complaint will not in this instance lead to
the dismissal of the action at present. "The usual standard in civil cases is to
allow defective pleadings to be corrected, especially in early stages, at least where
amendment would not be futile." Abu-Shawish v. United States, 898 F.3d 726,
738 (7th Cir. 2018). In the interest of justice, the Court will allow Mr. Perkins to
amend his complaint again if, after reviewing this Court's order, he believes that
he can state a viable claim for relief, consistent with the allegations he has
already made. See Tate v. SCR Med. Transp., 809 F.3d 343, 346 (7th Cir. 2015)
("We've often said that before dismissing a case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)
a judge should give the litigant, especially a pro se litigant, an opportunity to
amend his complaint."); Luevano v. Wal-Mart, 722 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir. 2013).
Mr. Perkins shall have through November 24, 2025, to file a second
amended complaint.
The 	second 	amended 	complaint 	must 	(a) 	contain 	a 	short 	and 	plain
statement of the claim showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief, which is
sufficient to provide the defendant with fair notice of the claim and its basis; (b)
Case 1:25-cv-01124-JPH-TAB Document 18 Filed 10/29/25 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
include a demand for the relief sought; and (c) identify what injury he claims to
have 	suffered 	and 	what 	persons 	are 	responsible 	for 	each 	such 	injury. 	In
organizing his complaint, Mr. Perkins must use the Court's complaint form. See
Local Rule 8-1 (requiring pro se plaintiffs to use the clerk-provided form for
claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983). The clerk is directed to include a copy of the
prisoner civil rights complaint form along with Mr. Perkins' copy of this Order.
Any second amended complaint should have the proper case number,
1:25-cv-01124-JPH-TAB and the words "Second Amended Complaint" on the
first page. The second amended complaint will completely replace the previous
complaints. See Beal v. Beller, 847 F.3d 897, 901 (7th Cir. 2017) ("For pleading
purposes, once an amended complaint is filed, the original complaint drops out
of the picture."). Therefore, it must set out every defendant, claim, and factual
allegation the plaintiff wishes to pursue in this action.
If Mr. Perkins files a second amended complaint, it will be screened
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). If no second amended complaint is filed by
the given deadline, this action will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted, without further notice or opportunity to show cause.
SO ORDERED.
Date: 10/29/2025
Case 1:25-cv-01124-JPH-TAB Document 18 Filed 10/29/25 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
Distribution:
QUINTON RODEFFER PERKINS
Fayette County Jail
123 W. 4th St.
Connersville, IN 47331
Case 1:25-cv-01124-JPH-TAB Document 18 Filed 10/29/25 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>