govinfo:USCOURTS-insd-1_26-cv-00362-0

1 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION 
 
DUSTIN M. PEARSON, ) 
 ) 
Plaintiff, ) 
 ) 
v. ) No. 1:26-cv-00362-JPH-CSW 
 ) 
DOREAN Mrs. (Cook Head), ) 
CHRISTINE Mrs (Cook Assistant), ) 
JOHN DOE Madison County Jail 
Maintenance, 
)
) 
 
JOHN DOE Madison County Jail 
Maintenance, 
)
) 
 
JANE DOE Madison County Jail 
Manitenance, 
)
) 
 
BRADFORD Corrections Officer, ) 
SUMPTER Jail Commander, ) 
 ) 
Defendants. ) 
 
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING FILING 
OF AMENDED COMPLAINT 
 
Plaintiff Dustin M. Pearson filed this civil action against Madison County 
Jail (the "Jail") staff pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because Mr. Pearson was a 
"prisoner" upon filing, 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 PageID #:
<pageID>
2 
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 Complaint 
The Court accepts Mr. Pearson'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)). 
The complaint alleges that, from June 29 to September 13, 2024, Mr. 
Pearson was incarcerated at Madison County Jail. From July 2 to September 
13, Mr. Pearson worked in the jail kitchen. 
In approximately late August 2024, the jail sewage pipes became clogged 
on three occasions. Mrs. Dorean and Mrs. Christine ordered kitchen staff, 
including Mr. Pearson, to assist maintenance staff with resolving the clogs. In 
resolving the first clog, located in a supply closet off of the laundry room, 
kitchen staff became soaked in sewage water for approximately eight hours. PageID #:
<pageID>
3 
For the second clog, the staff was again exposed to and covered in the 
unclean water. This clog was located in the kitchen and dripped on kitchen 
workers, who were unaware that the drips were sewage water. Kitchen staff 
were ordered to use laundry equipment, which held fifty to seventy-five gallons 
of liquid, to transfer the liquid towards the river fifty yards away. Consequently, 
sewage and trash were dumped in the river. This strategy saved the Jail money 
compared to alternatives. Commander Sumpter, Officer Bradford, and three 
maintenance staffers were involved. 
III. Dismissal of Complaint 
Applying the screening standard to the facts alleged in the complaint, the 
complaint and its claims of Fourteenth Amendment conditions-of-confinement 
violations must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may 
be granted. 
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). 
Next, all claims against Commander Sumpter and Officer Bradford are 
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 
Although Mr. Pearson alleges that they were involved in the second clog 
cleanup, he does not allege that they directed the cleanup, that they ordered PageID #:
<pageID>
4 
Mr. Pearson to participate, or any other specific acts by either defendant. 
"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) (internal quotation omitted). Generalities—such as alleging 
these defendants were involved in underlying allegations, without specifics—
are insufficient to support plausible clams. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 
544, 557 (2007) ("naked assertion[s]" devoid of "further factual enhancement" 
are insufficient to state a plausible claim for relief). To state a plausible claim, 
Mr. Pearson must allege not only that defendants were involved in allegedly 
unconstitutional conduct, but how they were involved. 
Finally, all claims against Mrs. Dorean and Mrs. Christine are dismissed 
for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Unlike with 
Commander Sumpter and Officer Bradford, Mr. Pearson does specifically allege 
that these defendants ordered kitchen staff to assist maintenance staff with the 
first clog, which culminated in staff being drenched in sewage water for hours. 
Yet again, Mr. Pearson's allegations lack the requisite specificity for claims to 
proceed against Mrs. Dorean and Mrs. Christine. Mr. Pearson's allegations do 
not indicate that either party was present for the cleaning in the laundry area 
or while the kitchen staff was exposed to wastewater, that they were aware of 
the cleaning strategy to be employed by maintenance staff with the kitchen 
staff's help, or that they were aware of the dripping wastewater. They also are 
not alleged to have supervisory authority over maintenance staff, and Mr. 
Pearson's allegation that they ordered kitchen staff to assist maintenance staff PageID #:
<pageID>
5 
in another area of the Jail, without more, does not indicate Mrs. Dorean's or 
Mrs. Christine's personal involvement in his sewage water exposure. See 
Colbert, 851 F.3d at 657. 
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 File an Amended Complaint
The dismissal of the 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 the plaintiff 
to amend his complaint 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). 
The plaintiff shall have through July 6, 2026, to file an amended 
complaint. 
The 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) include a 
demand for the relief sought; and (c) identify what injury he claims to have PageID #:
<pageID>
6 
suffered and what persons are responsible for each such injury. The clerk is 
directed to include a copy of the prisoner civil rights complaint form along with 
the plaintiff's copy of this Order, which he must use if he files an amended 
complaint. See S.D. Ind L.R. 8-1 (requiring pro se plaintiffs to use the clerk-
provided form for claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983). 
Any amended complaint should have the proper case number, No. 1:26-
cv-00362-JPH-CSW, and the words "Amended Complaint" on the first page. The 
amended complaint will completely replace the original. 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 the plaintiff files an amended complaint, it will be screened pursuant to 
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). If no amended complaint is filed, this action will be 
dismissed without further notice or opportunity to show cause. 
SO ORDERED. 
 
 
 
Distribution: 
 
DUSTIN M. PEARSON 
1912 N B Street 
Elwood, IN 46036 
 
Date: 6/17/2026 PageID #:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight