UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

SOUTH BEND DIVISION 

FRANK L. LLOYD, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CAUSE NO. 3:16-CV-218 WL 

 ) 

SHERIFF FRIES, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

OPINION AND ORDER 

 Frank L. Lloyd, a pro se prisoner, filed an amended complaint alleging that he contracted 

Hepatitis C while he was housed in the Allen County Jail as a pre-trial detainee because Sheriff 

Fries implemented a policy and procedure which required inmates to share hair clippers without a 

way to sterilize them between uses. “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) (quotation marks and 

citations omitted). However, pursuant to 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. “In order to state a claim under § 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). 

 “In evaluating the constitutionality of conditions or restrictions of pretrial detention . . . the 

proper inquiry is whether those conditions amount to punishment of the detainee.” Bell v. Wolfish, 

441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979). “[I]n the absence of an expressed intent to punish, a pretrial detainee 
2 

can nevertheless prevail by showing that the actions are not ‘rationally related to a legitimate 

nonpunitive governmental purpose’ or that the actions ‘appear excessive in relation to that 

purpose.’” Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. __, __; 135 S.Ct. 2466, 2473 (2015) (quoting Bell). 

Pursuant to Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), a sheriff in 

his official capacity can be held liable for monetary damages. See Thomas v. Cook Cty. Sheriff’s 

Dep’t, 604 F.3d 293, 305 (7th Cir. 2010). Giving Lloyd the benefit of the inferences to which he 

is entitled at the pleading stage of this proceeding, this complaint states a claim and Frank L. Lloyd 

will be granted leave to proceed against Sheriff Fries in his official capacity 

 For these reasons, the court: 

 (1) GRANTS Frank L. Lloyd leave to proceed against Sheriff Fries in his official capacity 

for compensatory and punitive damages for implementing a policy and procedure in violation of 

the Fourteenth Amendment which required inmates to share hair clippers without a way to sterilize 

them between uses which resulted in Frank L. Lloyd contracting Hepatitis C; 

 (2) DISMISSES all other claims; 

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

on Sheriff Fries with a copy of this order and the amended complaint (ECF 13) as required by 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(d); and 

 (4) ORDERS, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), Sheriff Fries to 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. 

 ENTERED: April 11, 2017 s/William C. Lee 

 William C. Lee, Judge 

 United States District Court