The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
TRAVIS T. TAGHON,
Plaintiff,
v. CAUSE NO. 3:20-CV-24-JD-MGG
ST. JOSEPH COUNTY INDIANA, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Travis T. Taghon, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a complaint alleging he was
injured in an automobile collision while being transported to court from the St. Joseph
County Jail. “A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint,
however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotation
marks and citations omitted). However, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must
review the merits of a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary
relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
Taghon alleges the two officers who placed him in the transport van on January
24, 2018, did not buckle him with a seatbelt. However, because he “did not have a
clearly established right to a seatbelt, Dale v. Agresta, 771 F. App’x 659, 661 (7th Cir.
2019), he does not state a claim against either Mike Fulnecky or C. Rutkowski.
Taghon also alleges, “jail policy does not call for inmates to be placed in safety
belts while being transported to court.” ECF 1 at 3. Taghon does not allege jail policy
prohibited seatbelts, only that it did not require them. To state a claim against a
municipality based on a policy, practice, or custom pursuant to Monell v. Dep’t of Soc.
Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), the complaint must plausibly allege: “(1)
an action pursuant to a municipal policy, (2) culpability, meaning that policymakers
were deliberately indifferent to a known risk that the policy would lead to
constitutional violations, and (3) causation, meaning the municipal action was the
‘moving force’ behind the constitutional injury.” Pulera v. Sarzant, 966 F.3d 540, 550 (7th
Cir. 2020) (citations omitted). This complaint does not allege sufficient facts to plausibly
state a Monell claim.
A complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to “state a claim that is
plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim
has facial plausibility when the pleaded factual content 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) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “Factual allegations must
be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that
all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 555 (quotation marks, citations and footnote omitted). “[W]here the well-pleaded
facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the
complaint has alleged—but it has not shown—that the pleader is entitled to relief.’”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (quotation marks and brackets omitted). Thus, “a plaintiff must do
better than putting a few words on paper that, in the hands of an imaginative reader,
might suggest that something has happened to her that might be redressed by the law.”
Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 403 (7th Cir. 2010) (emphasis in original).
This complaint does not state a claim for which relief can be granted.
Nevertheless, Taghon may file an amended complaint if he has additional facts which
he believes would state a claim because “[t]he 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). To
file an amended complaint, he needs to write this cause number on a Pro Se 14 (INND
Rev. 2/20) Prisoner Complaint form which is available from his law library. After he
properly completes that form with additional facts, he needs to send it to the court.
For these reasons, the court:
(1) GRANTS Travis T. Taghon until September 30, 2020, to file an amended
complaint; and
(2) CAUTIONS Travis T. Taghon if he does not respond by the deadline, this case
will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A without further notice because the
current complaint does not state a claim for which relief can be granted.
SO ORDERED on September 2, 2020
/s/JON E. DEGUILIO
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT