Matthew Pugh v. Larry Storm, Joseph Merida

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana grants Matthew Pugh leave to amend his complaint and screens the amended pleading under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court allows First Amendment retaliation claims against Lt. Larry Storm and Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claims against Storm and Ofc. Joseph Merida to proceed, while dismissing other claims and denying motions concerning the defendants' answer and a preliminary injunction.

Holdings

1. Leave to amend was properly granted because Pugh moved before the scheduling-order deadline and showed good cause.
2. The amended complaint failed to state a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim based on Pugh's disciplinary sanctions, transfer to restrictive housing, or transfer to another correctional facility because it did not allege an atypical and significant hardship.
3. The amended complaint failed to state a First Amendment retaliation claim against Merida because it did not plausibly allege that Merida knew of Pugh's grievances or that the grievances motivated Merida's conduct.
4. Pugh's First Amendment retaliation claim against Storm could proceed based on allegations that Storm retaliated against him for filing grievances.
5. Pugh's Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim against Storm could proceed based on the allegation that Storm made him sleep on a soiled mattress for a month.
6. Pugh's Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim against Merida could proceed based on the allegation that Merida intentionally denied him cleaning products after sewage entered his cell.
7. The motion for preliminary injunction was denied because the requested discovery-related relief was not tied to the specific claims or ultimate relief sought in the action.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Pugh should be granted leave to amend his complaint.
2. Whether the amended complaint stated a due process claim based on disciplinary sanctions, restrictive housing, or transfer.
3. Whether the amended complaint stated a First Amendment retaliation claim against Storm.
4. Whether the amended complaint stated a First Amendment retaliation claim against Merida.
5. Whether the alleged soiled mattress and denial of cleaning supplies stated Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claims.
6. Whether Pugh's request for discovery-related relief was properly granted as a preliminary injunction.
7. Whether Pugh's motions to file an answer to the defendants' answer and to strike the answer should be granted.

Disposition

other