UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

MARIO D. BELL, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) 

v. ) No. 3:16 CV 254

)

FORT WAYNE POLICE )

DEPARTMENT, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Mario D. Bell, a pro se prisoner, filed an amended complaint (DE # 10) alleging that 

six Fort Wayne Police Officers used excessive force while arresting him on November 23, 

2014. “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). Nevertheless, pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A, this court must review the complaint and dismiss it if the action is 

frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant 

who is immune from such relief. “In order to state a claim under [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 a 

plaintiff must allege: (1) that defendants deprived him of a federal constitutional right; 

and (2) that the defendants acted under color of state law.” Savory v. Lyons, 469 F.3d 667, 

670 (7th Cir. 2006). 

“A claim that an officer employed excessive force in arresting a person is evaluated 

under the Fourth Amendment’s objective-reasonableness standard.” Abbott v. Sangamon 
2

Cty., Ill., 705 F.3d 706, 724 (7th Cir. 2013). The question in Fourth Amendment excessive 

use of force cases is “whether the officers’ actions are ‘objectively reasonable’ in light of 

the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent 

or motivation.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397 (1989). “The test of reasonableness 

under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical 

application,” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 559 (1979), the question is “whether the totality 

of the circumstances” justifies the officers’ actions. Graham at 396. 

As a result of this arrest, Bell was convicted of Resisting Law Enforcement and 

being a Serious Violent Felon in Possession of a Firearm. Bell v. State, 57 N.E.3d 895 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 2016) (table). “In Evans v. Poskon, 603 F.3d 362 (7th Cir.2010), [the Seventh 

Circuit] addressed the ability of a plaintiff to proceed on a § 1983 excessive force claim 

where that plaintiff had been convicted of resisting arrest, and held that the plaintiff can 

only proceed to the extent that the facts underlying the excessive force claim are not 

inconsistent with the essential facts supporting the conviction.” Helman v. Duhaime, 742 

F.3d 760, 762 (7th Cir. 2014). Here is how the State Court described these events:

At approximately 5:00 p.m. on November 23, 2014, Detective 

Greenlee was on patrol when he noticed a car in front of him without its 

headlights on. Because visibility was poor, Detective Greenlee decided to 

stop the car and, to that end, activated his lights. Detective Greenlee first 

engaged Bell, who was the only person in the car, through the passengerside window and noticed that Bell’s hands were shaking. Detective 

Greenlee also noticed that Bell was attempting to hurry the traffic stop 

along. Detective Greenlee identified Bell and determined that the car was 

not registered in Bell’s name. As it happened, Bell had borrowed the car 

from Charlene Woods, his sister. Detective Grooms soon arrived to assist 

Detective Greenlee.
3

Detectives Grooms and Greenlee consulted with each other, reapproached the car, and had Bell exit it. Detective Greenlee told Bell to 

speak with Detective Grooms, and, when Detective Grooms put his hand 

on Bell’s shoulder and said, “I need you to stand right here,” Bell ran. The 

detectives pursued, with Detective Grooms catching up to Bell as he 

hopped a fence. Detective Grooms fired his taser and administered a fivesecond charge to Bell, who was initially incapacitated but soon attempted 

to rise. By this time, Detective Greenlee had arrived and Detective Grooms

tased Bell again so that Detective Greenlee would have time to climb over 

the fence. At this point, Detective Grooms thought that Bell might be 

suffering a seizure, and Detective Greenlee observed that Bell didn’t look 

like a person who he’d tased before. Detective Greenlee handcuffed Bell in 

the front out of concerns for Bell’s safety, and Detective Grooms called for 

immediate medical assistance.

Detective Greenlee rolled Bell onto his side, and, approximately 

forty-five seconds later, Bell started to regain consciousness. By this time, 

additional back-up had arrived. Although he was told repeatedly to stay 

down, Bell used both of his hands to push up from the ground, despite 

being pushed down by three police officers. Bell was thrashing violently 

and forcibly resisting the officers efforts to keep him on the ground and 

handcuff him behind his back.

Eventually, six officers joined in the attempt to subdue Bell, using 

various techniques to gain Bell’s compliance. Detective Grooms delivered 

three knee strikes to Bell’s thigh, which resulted in some temporary 

compliance. Officer John Drummer kicked Bell in the face after Bell grabbed 

his ankles and attempted to grab his gun. Eventually, the officers were able 

to force Bell’s arms behind his back and handcuff him. 

Bell v. State, 57 N.E.3d 895, *1-2 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (table) (brackets citations and 

quotation marks omitted).

In the complaint, Bell does not dispute that he ran from the officers, but argues 

that it was an unreasonable and excessive use of force for Detective Grooms to have used 

his taser to stop him. “Factors relevant to the reasonableness inquiry include ‘the severity 

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

officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest 
4

by flight.’” Williams v. Brooks, 809 F.3d 936, 944 (7th Cir. 2016) quoting Graham v. Connor, 

490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989).

Here, the officers stopped Bell for driving without his headlights on. There is no 

indication that they had probable cause to believe that he had committed any other 

offense when he decided to run away from them. Neither is there any indication that by 

running away from them he posed an immediate threat to their safety or anyone else. 

Nor is there any indication that he was actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade 

arrest by running because he was not under arrest and there is no indication that the 

officers were trying to arrest him. Based on these facts, Bell has plausibly alleged that 

Detective Grooms used excessive force by tasing him. 

Bell also alleges that all six defendants used excessive force against him after he 

was handcuffed and on the ground. He alleges that he did not fight back and was only 

struggling to breathe. However, these allegations contradict the facts necessary to 

support his conviction for Resisting Law Enforcement and he “can only proceed to the 

extent that the facts underlying the excessive force claim are not inconsistent with the 

essential facts supporting the conviction.” Helman v. Duhaime, 742 F.3d 760, 762 (7th Cir. 

2014). Therefore the court must accept that for the purposes of this lawsuit he violently 

and forcibly resisted the police. He kicked, pushed, wrestled, and fought with them. He 

grabbed at them and attempted to gain control of a gun during the struggle. It is in light 

of his actions during the fight that it must be determined whether he has plausibly alleged 

that the defendant officers were objectively unreasonable when they held him down, 
5

punched him in the groin, struck him in the knee, tased him three more times, and kicked 

him in the head to prevent him from grabbing a gun.

It is an objective inquiry, the dispositive question being whether, in light of 

the facts and circumstances that confronted the officer (and not 20/20 

hindsight), the officer behaved in an objectively reasonable manner, 

irrespective of the officer’s underlying intent or motivation. In answering 

this question, we remain cognizant of the fact that police officers are often 

forced to make split-second judgments – in circumstances that are tense, 

uncertain, and rapidly evolving – about the amount of force that is 

necessary in a particular situation. As a result, we give considerable leeway 

to law enforcement officers’ assessments about the appropriate use of force 

in dangerous situations. 

Abbott v. Sangamon Cty., Ill., 705 F.3d 706, 724–25 (7th Cir. 2013) (quotation marks and 

citations omitted). Here, where Bell was continuing to fight and trying to gain control of 

a gun, he has not plausibly alleged that the defendants’ uses of force against him were 

objectively unreasonable. They were fighting to prevent him from getting a gun with 

which he could have killed them. His attempts to gain access to deadly force demonstrate 

that their use of non-lethal force to stop him was not unreasonable. Therefore these claims 

will be dismissed. 

Finally, Bell alleges that the Fort Wayne Police Department failed to train or 

supervise Detective Grooms. “An allegation of a ‘failure to train’ is available only in 

limited circumstances.” Cornfield v. Consolidated High School Dist. No. 230, 991 F.2d 1316, 

1327 (7th Cir. 1993). This is not such a case. A failure to train claim requires that “the 

policymakers had acquiesced in a pattern of constitutional violations.” Id. Here, the 

complaint makes no mention of any prior instances where Detective Grooms, or any 

other Fort Wayne Police Officer, improperly used his taser. Neither does it provide any 
6

facts about why or how the Department’s training or supervision was inadequate. Rather, 

it merely makes the conclusory allegation that they were inadequate. “[A] plaintiff’s 

obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels 

and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not 

do.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “[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.” 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “[I]n considering 

the plaintiff’s factual allegations, courts should not accept as adequate abstract recitations 

of the elements of a cause of action or conclusory legal statements.” Brooks v. Ross, 578 

F.3d 574, 581 (7th Cir. 2009). Therefore the failure to train claim will be dismissed. 

For these reasons, the court:

(1) GRANTS Mario D. Bell leave to proceed against Detective Martin Grooms in 

his individual capacity for compensatory and punitive damages for using excessive force 

against him with his taser on November 23, 2014, in violation of the Fourth Amendment;

(2) DISMISSES all other claims;

(3) DISMISSES Fort Wayne Police Department, John Greenlee, John D. Drummer, 

George Nicklow, Robert Hollo, and Thomas L. Strausberger;

(4) DIRECTS the clerk and the United States Marshals Service to issue and serve 

process on Detective Martin Grooms with a copy of this order and the amended 

complaint (DE # 10) as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); and 
7

(5) ORDERS, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), that Detective Martin Grooms

respond, as provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and N.D. Ind. L.R. 10-

1(b), only to the claim for which the plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in this 

screening order. 

SO ORDERED.

Date: March 23, 2017

s/James T. Moody 

JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT