UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

Kipp A. Scott, 

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 4:14-CV-15-JVB-CAN 

State of Indiana, a/k/a 

Tippecanoe County 

Government1

, 

 Defendant. 

OPINION AND ORDER

 Plaintiff Kipp Scott originally filed this case against Defendant Tippecanoe County 

Government, alleging that his discharge as Chief Probation Officer in Tippecanoe County was 

retaliation for his taking leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) and further 

violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). (Compl. 1–6, ECF No. 2.) Defendant 

filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, contending it failed to state an 

actionable claim. (Mot. to Dismiss 2, ECF No. 10.) For the following reasons, the Court 

GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. 

 Since 1989, Plaintiff has worked for the Tippecanoe County Government. (Am. Compl. 

2, ECF No. 6.) In April 2013, Plaintiff’s health began to deteriorate; thus, on May 20, 2013, he 

sought medical leave under the FMLA. (Am. Compl. 2.) On July 29, 2013, Plaintiff met with 

two supervising judges and a human resources representative who, according to the Amended 

Complaint, offered him the option of resigning or otherwise being terminated. (Am. Compl. 3.) 

 

1

 Although Plaintiff chose an awkward caption for his amended coplaint, the parties agree that the actual defendant 

in this case is Tippecanoe County Government. 
2 

According to Plaintiff, the only explanation he received was that it was a “unanimous decision 

by the judges.” (Am. Compl. 3.) Later that same day, Plaintiff was terminated “for cause.” (Am. 

Compl. 3.) 

 When addressing a motion to dismiss, a court must assume that all facts as set forth in the 

complaint are true and must view the allegations in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. Singer v. 

Pierce & Assocs., P.C., 383 F.3d 596, 597 (7th Cir. 2004). Granting a motion to dismiss for 

failure to state a claim is suitable when “‘it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no 

set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.’” Lee v. City of Chicago, 

330 F.3d 456, 459 (7th Cir. 2003) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45–46 (1957)). A 

party’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) “challenges the 

sufficiency of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 

Johnson v. Rivera, 272 F.3d 519, 520–21 (7th Cir. 2001). 

 Plaintiff brought his ADA and FMLA claims against the “State of Indiana a/k/a 

Tippecanoe County” after he was allegedly “discriminated against and terminated on the basis of 

a serious medical condition.” (Am. Compl. 3.) Defendant (Tippecanoe County Government) 

filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint contending that Plaintiff filed the 

action against the wrong party because Plaintiff was not a county employee but was rather 

employed by the state. (Mot. to Dismiss 2.) In determining whether Plaintiff was a state or 

county employee, the federal court is guided by state law. McMillian v. Monroe County, 520 

U.S. 781, 786 (1997). Under Indiana law, “[p]robation is an arm of the court, it like the court 

itself is a state entity.” J.A.W. v. State, 650 N.E.2d 1142, 1150 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995); see Ind. 

Code § 11-13-1-1(c) (“Probation officers shall serve at the pleasure of the appointing court and 

are directly responsible to and subject to the orders of that court.”). Notably, Plaintiff also 
3 

concedes in his Response and Sur-Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss that the proper 

Defendant is the State of Indiana, not Tippecanoe County. (Resp. to Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss 1, 

ECF No. 12; Sur-Resp. to Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss 1, ECF No. 16). 

 Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff is unable to prove any set of facts entitling him to 

relief against Defendant Tippecanoe County Government. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS its 

Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 10).2

SO ORDERED on May 7, 2014. 

 S/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen 

 JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

2

 Plaintiff asks that the case be remanded to State court so that he may name the proper defendant, the State of 

Indiana. In the alternative, he asks that the case be dismissed without prejudice. These requests, however, are futile. 

A remand would make sense only if the Court had no jurisdiction over this case, yet that is not the basis for 

Plaintiff’s request. Moreover, given that Tippecanoe County is an incorrect party for his grievance, a dismissal 

without prejudice would achieve nothing as he may not refile his case against Tippecanoe County.