UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

STACY E. PETIT, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) No. 1:13 CV 349 

v. )

)

MARION POLICE DEPT., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION and ORDER

Stacy E. Petit, a pro se prisoner, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (DE # 1.)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review a complaint filed by a prisoner

and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or

seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. To survive

dismissal, the complaint must state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.

Bissessur v. Ind. Univ. Bd. of Trs., 581 F.3d 599, 602-03 (7th Cir. 2009). “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.” Id. at 603.

In other words, “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). Nevertheless, a pro se complaint “must be held to less

stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551

U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
Here, Petit claims that two officers from the Marion Police Department used

excessive force in effectuating his arrest on June 15, 2013. Petit alleges that on that date,

he and his girlfriend were walking home when they were stopped by Sergeant Tom

Sisson, who was driving through the area in his patrol car. Sergeant Sisson asked him

for identification, and when he tried to get it out of his pocket, the officer told him to

turn and face a building, and put his hands over his head. He complied, and the officer

then asked him a second time for his identification. When Petit tried to get it out,

Sergeant Sisson began cursing at him. At this point two other police cars arrived on the

scene, and Officer Shawn McGuire allegedly approached Petit and shocked him in the

back with a taser without any warning. According to Petit, the officers then slammed

him down on the sidewalk and kneed him in the side, causing injuries to his face and

significant pain in his ribs. He was arrested for resisting law enforcement and

disorderly conduct. After his release from jail four days later, he went to the hospital

and discovered that he had broken ribs, which took three months to heal. He also

alleges that he has a permanent scar on his face due to the officers slamming him onto

the sidewalk. 

The Fourth Amendment guarantees the “right of people to be secure in their

persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S.

CONST. amend. IV. Under the Fourth Amendment, an officer’s right to arrest an

individual includes the right to use some degree of physical force, but the use of force

must be objectively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances. Graham v.

2
Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989). “Determining whether the force used to effect a

particular seizure is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment requires a careful

balancing of the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth

Amendment interests against the countervailing governmental interests at stake.” Id.

(quotation marks and citations omitted). Factors to consider include the severity of the

crime at issue, whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the safety of the

officers or others, and whether he was resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by

flight. Id.

Here, Petit alleges that he was simply walking down the street when he was

stopped by Sergeant Sisson. Petit claims that he was fully cooperative during these

events and was not resisting, yet the officers slammed him face-first onto the sidewalk,

shocked him with a taser, and broke his ribs. Although further factual development

may show that the officers’ use of force was reasonable under the circumstances, at this

stage the court must accept Petit’s allegations as true. Giving him the inferences to

which he is entitled, he has alleged a plausible excessive force claim against the officers.

Petit also names the Marion Police Department as a defendant, but a municipal

police department is not a suable entity under Indiana law and thus cannot be sued for

constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Sow v. Fortville Police Dep’t, 636 F.3d

293, 300 (7th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, this defendant will be dismissed. 

3
For the reasons set forth above, the court: 

(1) GRANTS the plaintiff leave to proceed against Sergeant Tom Sisson and

Officer Shawn McGuire in their individual capacities for monetary damages for using

excessive force against him;

(2) DISMISSES the Marion Police Department as a defendant;

(3) DISMISSES any and all other claims contained in the complaint;

(4) DIRECTS the United States Marshals Service to effect service of process on

Sergeant Tom Sisson and Officer Shawn McGuire pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); and

(5) ORDERS Sergeant Tom Sisson and Officer Shawn McGuire to respond, in

accordance with the FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, only to the claim for which the

plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in this screening order.

SO ORDERED.

Date: January 30, 2014

s/James T. Moody 

JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4