Tyler J. Arbuckle v. Warden

Arbuckle · United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division · February 5, 2026 · No. 3:26-CV-137-PPS-JEM

Summary

The court grants Tyler J. Arbuckle leave to proceed against the Indiana State Prison Warden in the Warden’s official capacity on claims for protection from attack and constitutionally adequate mental health treatment under the Eighth Amendment. The court directs the clerk to docket the preliminary injunction motion as a complaint, seek waiver of service, and serve the Warden. The Warden is ordered to respond by February 23, 2026, describing the measures taken to protect Arbuckle and provide mental health treatment.

Holdings

  1. The court granted Arbuckle leave to proceed against the Indiana State Prison warden in the warden's official capacity for permanent injunctive relief to protect Arbuckle from attack and provide constitutionally adequate mental-health treatment as required by the Eighth Amendment.
  2. A preliminary injunction requires the movant to establish likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm absent relief, that the balance of equities favors the movant, and that an injunction is in the public interest.
  3. The PLRA requires correctional injunctive relief to be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the federal-rights violation, and use the least intrusive means necessary; the court therefore recognized a high bar to ordering Arbuckle's transfer.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Arbuckle's pro se preliminary-injunction filing stated an actionable official-capacity claim against the Indiana State Prison warden for permanent injunctive relief protecting him from attack and providing constitutionally adequate mental-health treatment.
  2. What standard governs Arbuckle's request for a preliminary injunction.
  3. Whether the Prison Litigation Reform Act permits the court to order a prison transfer without a clear showing of a constitutional violation and compliance with the statute's narrow-tailoring and least-intrusive-means requirements.
  4. What service and responsive-pleading procedures should follow the screening determination.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (5)

  • Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)(followed)
  • Gonzalez v. Feinerman, 663 F.3d 311, 315 (7th Cir. 2011)(followed)
  • Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997)(followed)
  • Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)(followed)
  • Westefer v. Neal, 682 F.3d 679 (7th Cir. 2012)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…