Octavio Perez Beauchamp v. Lake County Sheriffs Office

Beauchamp · United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division · April 28, 2026 · No. 2:26-CV-174-HAB-JEM

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana screens a pro se prisoner’s complaint alleging denial of constitutionally adequate medical care for an infected hernia. The court permits the plaintiff to proceed against the Lake County Sheriff in his official capacity for prospective injunctive relief, dismisses the Lake County Sheriff’s Office and all other claims, and directs service and responses concerning preliminary injunctive relief. The order was issued under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and applies the Fourteenth Amendment standard for pretrial detainee medical-care claims.

Holdings

  1. An allegation that a pretrial detainee has an infected hernia plausibly establishes an objectively serious medical need for purposes of a Fourteenth Amendment medical-care claim.
  2. A pretrial detainee states a plausible Fourteenth Amendment medical-care claim by alleging a serious medical need and conduct or inaction that was objectively unreasonable in light of the known circumstances; proof of the defendant's subjective knowledge of the resulting harm is not required under the applicable objective standard.
  3. The Lake County Sheriff's Office is not a suable entity under Indiana law and was properly dismissed as a defendant.
  4. The court may add the Lake County Sheriff in his official capacity and allow a claim for prospective injunctive relief to proceed when the sheriff is positioned to oversee the requested medical-care relief.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged that Beauchamp had an objectively serious medical need protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
  2. Whether the Lake County Sheriff's Office was a suable entity under Indiana law and could serve as the defendant for Beauchamp's claim.
  3. Whether the complaint stated a claim for prospective injunctive relief against the Lake County Sheriff in his official capacity.
  4. Which claims and defendants should be dismissed at screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (16)

  • Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)(followed)
  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(followed)
  • Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)(followed)
  • Miranda v. Cty. of Lake, 900 F.3d 335 (7th Cir. 2018)(followed)
  • Pittman v. Madison Cnty., 108 F.4th 561, 570-72 (7th Cir. 2024)(followed)
  • Wynn v. Southward, 251 F.3d 588, 593 (7th Cir. 2001)(followed)
  • Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389, 396 (2015)(followed)
  • Mays v. Dart, 974 F.3d 810, 819 (7th Cir. 2020)(followed)
  • Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978)(followed)
  • Sow v. Fortville Police Dep't, 636 F.3d 293, 300 (7th Cir. 2011)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 16.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…