UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

ELSTON L. PICKFORD, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) 

v. ) Case No. 3:15-CV-191 JD

)

LAKE COUNTY MUNICIPALITY, )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Elston L. Pickford, a pro se plaintiff, initially filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

alleging four individuals kept him incarcerated too long at Lake County Community Corrections

(“LCCC”). (DE 2.) However, Pickford did not allege that he was being held at the LCCC beyond

his court imposed out date. Instead, he conceded that he was being held pursuant to a lawful state

court judgment, but he objected to the terms of that judgment. (DE 3.) The court found that he failed

to state a claim against any of the named individual defendants. (Id.) Nevertheless, in an abundance

of caution, he was granted leave to file an amended complaint in the spirit of Luevano v. Wal-Mart,

722 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir. 2013). (Id.) 

 Pickford initially filed an amended complaint on July 16, 2015. (DE 12.) However, after

recognizing a number of deficiencies in that filing, Pickford moved for leave to file a corrected

amended complaint. (DE 16.) He filed that corrected amended complaint on August 6, 2015. (DE

15.) Pickford’s motion for the court to consider the corrected version of the amended complaint will

be granted.

The court must review the complaint 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. To survive dismissal, the complaint must state a claim for relief that

is plausible on its face. Bissessur v. Indiana 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. Thus,

the 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). Nevertheless, the court must bear in

mind that “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). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must allege

that: (1) the defendants deprived him of a federal constitutional right; and (2) the defendants acted

under color of state law. Savory v. Lyons, 469 F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir. 2006). 

Pickford is currently incarcerated at the Westville Correctional Center. He alleges that in

2011 he was charged with and convicted of battery and burglary in Lake County Superior Court. He

was sentenced to five (5) years in the Indiana Department of Corrections, with two (2) years

executed in the LCCC program and three (3) years suspended on each count to run consecutive to

each other. Pickford alleges that under Indiana law (and his plea agreement) his sentences should

have run concurrent to each other. However, since the judge imposed consecutive sentences, he

ended up serving 379 days too long at the LCCC. Pickford seeks money damages against Lake

County for the days he believes he spent incarcerated too long at LCCC.

In order to prevail on an Eighth Amendment claim, Pickford must plead that he was held

beyond his out date without penological justification, and that the prolonged detention was the result

2
of the defendants’ “deliberate indifference.” Campbell v. Peters, 256 F.3d 695, 700 (7th Cir. 2001). 

In other words, the detainment must amount to calculated harassment unrelated to prison needs. 

McGee v. Adams, 721 F.3d 474, 480-81 (7th Cir. 2013); Whitman v. Nesic, 368 F.3d 931, 934-35

(7th Cir. 2004). However, Pickford has again failed to allege that he was ever held beyond his

official out date. According to the complaint, he was being held pursuant to a valid state court order. 

DeGuelle v. Camili, 724 F.3d 933, 937 (7th Cir. 2013) (noting that federal courts are required “to

give state court judgments the same preclusive effect that the state courts that issued the judgments

would give them.”). Because Pickford’s allegations show that he was held at LCCC pursuant to a

valid state court order, there has been no constitutional deprivation. See Armato v. Grounds, 766

F.3d 713 at 720-721 (7th Cir. 2014) (holding that plaintiff could not recover for any injury based

on IDOC officials holding inmate pursuant to the terms of a valid court order).

Even if Pickford could have shown that he suffered a constitutional violation, which he has

not, Lake County is not a proper defendant. Apparently Pickford has named Lake County as a

defendant because it employed the LCCC staff who refused to release him from custody. However,

there is no general respondeat superior liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Chavez v. Illinois State

Police, 251 F.3d 612, 651 (7th Cir. 2001). Moreover, to state a claim against a municipal defendant

under Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978), he must allege the existence of an

unconstitutional official policy or practice, which he has not done.

For these reasons, the court:

(1) GRANTS the motion to file an amended complaint (DE 16); and 

(2) DISMISSES this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A.

3
SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: September 11, 2015 

 /s/ JON E. DEGUILIO 

Judge

United States District Court

4