“The remainder of [plaintiff’s] substantive legal theories . . . warrant little discussion [b]ecause they all involve the same set of facts . . . they would be redundant even if we found that he stated a claim.
How later courts described this case
- “The remainder of [plaintiff’s] substantive legal theories . . . warrant little discussion [b]ecause they all involve the same set of facts . . . they would be redundant even if we found that he stated a claim.
- dismissing claims based on same circumstances because the claim “gains nothing by attracting additional constitutional labels”
- courts have repeatedly characterized sovereign citizen theories as legally frivolous and having no conceivable validity
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
FRENCH MASON,
Plaintiff,
v. CAUSE NO. 3:22-CV-1008-DRL-MGG
DAY et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
French Mason, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against six defendants. ECF 1. “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) (quotations
and citations omitted). Nevertheless, under 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.
On May 10, 2021, Mr. Mason had a seizure while he was sleeping in his bed in his
cell. ECF 1 at 2. He asserts that Officers J. Shoffner, A. Miller, and Bowman assaulted, tased,
and maced him while he was having the seizure.1 Id. He sustained injuries from the assault,
1 In Mason v. Shoffner, Case No. 3:21-cv-834-DRL-MGG (N.D. Ind. filed Oct. 26, 2021), Mr. Mason is
proceeding against Officers Shoffner, Miller, and Bowman in their individual capacities for
assaulting him while he was having a seizure in his cell on May 10, 2021, in violation of the Eighth
Amendment. See Case No. 3:21-cv-834, ECF 18 at 7. He was also given leave to proceed against these
three defendants in their individual capacities for compensatory and punitive damages for
committing a battery against him on May 10, 2021, in violation of Indiana law. Id.
including a broken hand and fractured skull. Id. Mr. Mason avers that Officers Walker,
Butler, and Day knew he was unconscious and unresponsive during the seizure, but did not
intervene on his behalf when Officers Shoffner, Miller, and Bowman assaulted him. Id. Thus,
according to Mr. Mason, the actions of Officers Walker, Butler, and Day constitute deliberate
indifference because they failed to intervene and prevent the assault. Id.
“[O]fficers who have a realistic opportunity to step forward and prevent a fellow
officer from violating a plaintiff’s rights through the use of excessive force but fail to do so”
may be held liable. Miller v. Smith, 220 F.3d 491, 495 (7th Cir. 2000) (citing Yang v. Hardin, 37
F.3d 282, 285 (7th Cir. 1994)). Mr. Mason has not plausibly alleged facts from which it can
be reasonably inferred that Officers Walker, Butler, and Day had a realistic opportunity to
intervene on his behalf. Thus, he has not stated a failure to intervene claim.
Mr. Mason contends that following the May 10, 2021 assault, Officers Walker, Butler,
Day, Shoffner, Miller, and Bowman did not call the medical unit to obtain immediate
treatment for his broken hand and fractured skull. ECF 1 at 2. Instead, he was escorted to a
segregated housing unit where he remained for weeks with no medical treatment for his
injuries. Id. at 2-3. When he later saw an orthopedic surgeon, the surgeon told him he needed
surgery because he had not received prompt treatment for his injuries. Id. at 3. Because of
the delay in treatment, the bones in his hand began to grow together. Id. Mr. Mason was
also told he needed craniotomy surgery to insert a new plate into his skull. Id.
Under the Eighth Amendment, inmates are entitled to constitutionally adequate
medical care. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). To establish liability, a prisoner must
satisfy both an objective and subjective component by showing: (1) his medical need was
objectively serious; and (2) the defendant acted with deliberate indifference to that medical
need. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). A medical need is “serious” if it is one that
a physician has diagnosed as mandating treatment, or one that is so obvious that even a lay
person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor’s attention. Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d
645, 653 (7th Cir. 2005). Deliberate indifference means that the defendant “acted in an
intentional or criminally reckless manner, i.e., the defendant must have known that the
plaintiff was at serious risk of being harmed and decided not to do anything to prevent that
harm from occurring even though he could have easily done so.” Board v. Farnham, 394 F.3d
469, 478 (7th Cir. 2005).
Mr. Mason has not stated an Eighth Amendment claim against the defendants.
Though he asserts he was not given medical treatment immediately following the May 10,
2021 assault, he has not alleged that he asked any of the defendants for treatment and they
refused to provide it. Instead, he was taken to the segregated housing unit where he asserts
he remained there for weeks without receiving medical care. Therefore, he has not alleged
facts from which it can plausibly be inferred that any defendant was deliberately indifferent
to his medical needs.
Mr. Mason next asserts that the defendants in this case threatened him and assaulted
him on May 10, 2021, in retaliation for filing grievances and a prior lawsuit, Mason v. Bullock,
Case No. 3:21-cv-20-JD-MGG (N.D. Ind. filed Jan. 11, 2021), dismissed Apr. 7, 2022
(summary judgment granted in favor of defendants). ECF 1 at 3. Under the First
Amendment, an inmate can’t be punished for engaging in certain kinds of speech. Filing a
grievance or lawsuit qualifies as protected activity for purposes of a First Amendment claim.
Holleman v. Zatecky, 951 F.3d 873, 879 (7th Cir. 2020). To assert a First Amendment retaliation
claim, an inmate must allege: “(1) he engaged in activity protected by the First Amendment;
(2) he suffered a deprivation that would likely deter First Amendment activity in the future;
and (3) the First Amendment activity was at least a motivating factor in the Defendants’
decision to take the retaliatory action.” Gomez v. Randle, 680 F.3d 859, 866 (7th Cir. 2012)
(quotation marks and citation omitted). The third factor requires some “causal link between
the activity and the unlawful retaliation.” Manuel v. Nalley, 966 F.3d 678, 680 (7th Cir. 2020).
Though Mr. Mason believes he was assaulted in retaliation for filing Mason v. Bullock,
Case No. 3:21-cv-20, he has not stated a First Amendment claim. With respect to Officers
Walker, Butler, and Day, he does not allege that they assaulted him on May 10, 2021. As to
Officers Shoffner, Miller, and Bowman, his retaliation claim is duplicative of his excessive
force claim in Mason v. Shoffner, Case No. 3:21-cv-834-DRL-MGG (N.D. Ind. filed Oct. 26,
2021), where he was granted leave to proceed against these three defendants for assaulting
him while he was having a seizure in his cell on May 10, 2021, in violation of the Eighth
Amendment. See Case No. 3:21-cv-834, ECF 18 at 7. Allowing Mr. Mason to proceed on his
retaliation claim against Officers Shoffner, Miller, and Bowman would be duplicative
because proceeding on different constitutional theories based on the same facts is
redundant. See Williams v. Snyder, 150 F. App’x 549, 552 (7th Cir. 2005) (“The remainder of
[plaintiff’s] substantive legal theories . . . warrant little discussion [b]ecause they all involve
the same set of facts . . . they would be redundant even if we found that he stated a claim.);
Conyers v. Abitz, 416 F.3d 580, (7th Cir. 2005) (dismissing claims based on same
circumstances because the claim “gains nothing by attracting additional constitutional
labels”).
As a final matter, Mr. Mason, who is a Moorish American citizen, asserts that the
defendants violated provisions of the Peace and Friendship Treaty and the Moroccan
Empire of America Republic National De Jure Government, a municipal trust. ECF 1 at 3.
Any claim that Mr. Mason is a sovereign citizen who is entitled to special rights or not
subject to laws of general applicability is patently frivolous. Jones-Bey v. State, 847 F.3d 559,
559–61 (7th Cir. 2017); United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753, 767 (7th 2011) (courts have
repeatedly characterized sovereign citizen theories as legally frivolous and having no
conceivable validity). Therefore, these allegations do not state a claim.
This complaint does not state a claim for which relief can be granted. If Mr. Mason
believes he can state a claim based on (and consistent with) the events described in this
complaint, he may file an amended complaint 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. He
needs to write the word “Amended” on the first page above the title “Prisoner Complaint”
and send it to the court after he properly completes the form.
For these reasons, the court:
(1) GRANTS French Mason until December 8, 2023, to file an amended complaint;
and
(2) CAUTIONS French Mason that, if he does not respond by the deadline, this case
will be dismissed under 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.
November 9, 2023 s/ Damon R. Leichty
Judge, United States District Court