govinfo:USCOURTS-insd-4_26-cv-00025-1

1 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 
NEW ALBANY DIVISION 
 
JOHN R. MCCLURE, ) 
 ) 
Plaintiff, ) 
 ) 
v. ) No. 4:26-cv-00025-SEB-DML 
 ) 
SCOTT COUNTY, INDIANA, ) 
SCOTT COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, ) 
KACEY RESCHAR Deputy, ) 
KYLE WEST Deputy, ) 
MCCUTCHEON Detective, ) 
BULLITT COUNTY, KENTUCKY SHERIFF'S 
DEPARTMENT, 
) 
) 
 
DOES 1-10, ) 
 ) 
Defendants. ) 
 
Order Screening Fourth Amended Complaint and Staying Proceeding 
The Court has screened Plaintiff John R. McClure's previous complaints pursuant to 28 
U.S.C. § 1915(e) and found them to contain unrelated claims against different defendants in 
violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 20. Dkts. 34, 51. The Court dismissed Mr. McClure's most recent third 
amended complaint and provided him an opportunity to file a fourth amended complaint that 
complied with Fed. R. Civ. P. 20. Dkt. 51. Mr. McClure has filed a fourth amended complaint, 
dkt. 52, which the Court now screens pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). See Coleman v. Labor & 
Indus. Review Comm'n, 860 F.3d 461, 465 (7th Cir. 2017); Luevano v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 722 
F.3d 1014, 1022 (7th Cir. 2013). A court must "dismiss [a] case at any time" if the court determines 
the action is "frivolous or malicious" of the action "fails to state a claim on which relief may be 
granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Luevano, 722 F.3d at 1022. PageID #:
<pageID>
2 
II. The Fourth Amended Complaint 
In the fourth amended complaint, Mr. McClure names five defendants —Deputy Sheriff 
Kacey Reschar, Deputy Sheriff Kyle West, Detective McCutcheon, and two "John Doe" Scott 
County Sheriff's Department officers. Mr. McClure alleges that, on March 24, 2025, Mr. McClure 
was driving in Scott County, Indiana. Deputy Reschar, in an unmarked vehicle, initiated a traffic 
stop; other officers arrived on the scene. Mr. McClure exited his vehicle, and, while he was 
standing near the front bumper of a police vehicle, Deputy West grabbed his arm without warning. 
Mr. McClure was forced to the ground by multiple officers, hitting the police vehicle on his way 
down, causing bruising. 
Mr. McClure was arrested and transported to Scott County Jail. There, he was subjected to 
a strip search, x -rays, DNA collection, and photographs. He requested further medical attention. 
Detective McCutcheon was aware of Mr. McClure's injuries. Yet, Mr. McClure received no further 
treatment at Scott County Jail. Mr. McClure experience d neck pain, pain radiating into his arm, 
numbness, and reduced grip strength; he also experienced humiliation. 
The Court takes judicial notice that Mr. McClure's criminal case, State v. McClure, No. 72-
C01-2503-F5-000009, in Scott Circuit Court resulted in a partial guilty plea. The Court further 
notices that Mr. McClure filed a notice of appeal in that matter on May 28, 2026, and that the Scott 
Circuit Court found the notice of appeal substantively deficient to commence an appeal. In his 
May 28 emergency notice of state court retaliation and judicial misconduct, dkt. 60, Mr. McClure 
indicates an intent to file an appeal of the Scott Circuit Court judgment and that he has through 
June 27 to do so. PageID #:
<pageID>
3 
III. Discussion of Claims 
Although a plaintiff need not plead legal theories in a complaint, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), 
Mr. McClure has identified the theories he wishes to use as Fourth Amendment excessive force, 
Fourth Amendment unreasonable seizure, and Fourteenth Amendment inadequate medical care 
claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Where a pro se litigant has expressly stated the legal theories 
he wishes to pursue, the district court is not required to analyze whether the allegations in the 
complaint might state a claim under a different legal theory. See Larry v. Goldsmith, 799 F. App'x 
413, 416 (7th Cir. 2016) ( citing Clancy v. Office of Foreign Assets Control of U.S. Dep' t of 
Treasury, 559 F.3d 595, 606-07 (7th Cir. 2009)). Thus, the C ourt analyzes Mr. McClure's claims 
only under the theories he has identified. 
Applying the screening standard to the factual allegations in the complaint, certain claims 
are dismissed while other claims shall proceed as submitted. 
 First, all claims against the "John Doe" defendants are dismissed for failure to state a claim 
upon which relief may be granted. "[I]t is pointless to include [an] anonymous defendant[ ] in 
federal court; this type of placeholder does not open the door to relation back under Fed.R.Civ.P. 
15, nor can it otherwise help the plaintiff." Wudtke v. Davel, 128 F.3d 1057, 1060 (7th Cir. 1997) 
(internal citations omitted). Bringing suit against unnamed, or "John Doe", defendants in federal 
court is generally disfavored by the Seventh Circuit, and such claims are therefore dismissed. 
 Second, all claims against Detective McCutcheon are dismissed for failure to state a claim 
upon which relief may be granted. Mr. McClure's sole allegation against Detective McCutcheon 
is that Detective McCutcheon was aware of Mr. McClure's injuries at the jail. "Individual liability 
under § 1983 . . . requires personal involvement in the alleged constitutional deprivation." Colbert 
v. City of Chi., 851 F.3d 649, 657 (7th Cir. 2017). Mr. McClure does not allege Detective PageID #:
<pageID>
4 
McCutcheon to have been present for the alleged excessive force or unreasonable seizure. As for 
the inadequate medical care claim, "inaction following receipt of a complaint about someone else's 
conduct is [insufficient]." Est. of Miller by Chassie v. Marberry, 847 F.3d 425, 428 (7th Cir. 2017). 
Detective McCutcheon is not alleged to have ignored Mr. McClure's medical needs or actively 
denied his requests, and Detective McCutcheon's mere knowledge and inaction, without more, 
does not state a cognizable Fourteenth Amendment claim. 
 Third, all Fourteenth Amendment inadequate medical care claims against Deputy Reschar 
and Deputy West are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Mr. 
McClure alleges no defendants , including Deputy Reschar and Deputy West, to have been 
personally responsible for his lack of medical care at the jail. See Est. of Miller by Chassie , 847 
F.3d at 428. 
 Finally, all Fourth Amendment claims against Deputy Reschar and Deputy West are stayed 
pending the outcome of State v. McClure , No. 72C01- 2503-F5-000009, and any appeals . The 
abstention doctrine in Younger v. Harris provides that federal courts should abstain from hearing 
constitutional challenges to state actions until the state proceedings are resolved. 401 U.S. 37 
(1971). This doctrine is subject to very narrow exceptions, which amount to "flagrant violation[s] 
of express constitutional rights" and irre parable injury. Arkebauer v. Kiley, 985 F.2d 1351, 1358 
(7th Cir. 1993) (internal citation omitted). The Seventh Circuit has explained that "[t]he rule in 
Younger v. Harris is designed to permit state courts to try state cases free from interference by 
federal courts." FreeEats.com, Inc. v. Indiana ¸ 502 F.3d 590, 595 (7th Cir. 2007). Citing this 
doctrine, federal courts have largely declined to interfere in state court criminal proceedings until 
resolution of the case. See, e.g., Simpson v. Rowan, 73 F.3d 134, 138 (7th Cir. 1995). The Seventh PageID #:
<pageID>
5 
Circuit has instructed district courts to stay civil rights claims for monetary relief, not to dismiss 
them. Id. at 138-39. 
 Here, Mr. McClure seeks damages and declaratory relief. He submits that the state 
proceeding is being conducted in bad faith or for purposes of harassment. Dkt. 60 at 2. Mr. 
McClure states that the state court judge is threatening him off the record. While a federal court 
may intervene despite an ongoing state criminal case i f the "state proceeding is motivated by a 
desire to harass or is conducted in bad faith," Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 611 (1975), 
Mr. McClure's categorization of the judge's behavior at one hearing as threatening does not 
undermine the proceeding in turn. After all, Mr. McClure entered a partial guilty plea to the charges 
brought against him, and he indicates that the appellate process is available to him. Neither the 
allegations in his operative complaint nor the statements in his subsequent filings are sufficient to 
support a finding that the prosecution occurred as part of an effort to harass him or was otherwise 
initiated in bad faith. Provided Mr. McClure's representations to the Court that he anticipates 
appealing the Scott C ircuit Court judgment, the Court will stay this action pending resolution of 
the purportedly forthcoming appeal. 
IV. Conclusion and Service of Process 
This action is STAYED pending the outcome in State v. McClure , No. 72C01-2503-F5-
000009, in Scott Circuit Court. Mr. McClure is ORDERED to provide a status update after June 
29, 2026, but before July 10, 2026. He shall provide further status updates every 60 days on the 
status of Scott Circuit Court action until it has concluded. The status updates shall be titled "Status 
Update", and they shall include the status of any appeal should one occur and any other pertinent 
dates or deadlines in the case. Should Mr. McClure fail to provide status updates every 60 days, 
this action may be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute without further warning. PageID #:
<pageID>
6 
While the stay postpones and halts this proceeding, the Court may rule on Plaintiff's 
outstanding motions as of entering this Order without lifting the stay. 
 IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 Date: ______________________ 
 
 
 
 
Distribution: 
 
JOHN R. MCCLURE 
100 Dewberry Rd. 
Louisville, KY 40229 
 
 _______________________________ 
 SARAH EVANS BAR
KER, JUDGE 
 United States District Court 
 Southern District of Indiana 
6/15/2026 PageID #:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight