Duke Henderson v. Pablo Perez, et al.

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana
DecidedJanuary 30, 2026
Docket2:25-cv-00241
StatusUnknown

This text of Duke Henderson v. Pablo Perez, et al. (Duke Henderson v. Pablo Perez, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Indiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Duke Henderson v. Pablo Perez, et al., (S.D. Ind. 2026).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

DUKE HENDERSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 2:25-cv-00241-JPH-MKK ) PABLO PEREZ, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING FILING OF AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Duke Henderson is a prisoner currently incarcerated at Putnamville Correctional Facility ("Putnamville"). He filed this civil action alleging that he was subjected to retaliation and poor medical care by 12 defendants. Because Mr. Henderson is incarcerated, this Court must screen the complaint before service on the defendants. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c). Before doing a substantive screening of the claims presented, however, the Court assesses "whether joinder is proper under Rule 20 before considering the merits" of the claims as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Dorsey v. Varga, 55 F.4th 1094, 1107 (7th Cir. 2022). I. The Complaint Mr. Henderson's factual allegations are accepted as true at the pleading stage. See Lisby v. Henderson, 74 F.4th 470, 472 (7th Cir. 2023). Mr. Henderson names the following defendants: (1) Dr. Pablo Perez, (2) Nurse Sarah Snowden, (3) Medical Assistant Alisha Eder, (4) Putnamville Warden Tricia Pretorious, (5) Lt. Kirkland, (6) Sgt. Thrasher, (7) Officer Bice, (8) Officer Draughn, (9) Officer Pebbles, (10) Defendant Laban, (11) Sgt. Fagorie, and (12) John Doe.1 In the fall of 2023, Mr. Henderson was housed in Putnamville's medical

dorm. Officer Pebbles tended to use the inmates' restroom facilities, which Mr. Henderson and other inmates found odd because officers usually used a staff restroom. On August 22, 2023, Mr. Henderson asked Officer Pebbles in a non- threatening way why he used the inmates' restroom, and Officer Pebbles responded that he could use it whenever he wanted and that if Mr. Henderson is so bothered, he should write a grievance. Mr. Henderson responded, "Maybe I will." Dkt. 1 at 4.

Upon hearing that response, Officer Pebbles immediately called an emergency signal and wrote a false conduct report stating that Mr. Henderson threatened to "beat his ass" if Officer Pebbles returned to the inmates' restroom. Id. Mr. Henderson said the false conduct report was retaliation for Mr. Henderson stating he might file a grievance. Officer Bice was the first to respond to the emergency signal, and he immediately told Mr. Henderson to cuff up. Mr. Henderson asked why he was being placed in restraints, and Officer Bice pulled out his OC spray. Officer Bice

also wrote a false conduct report accusing Mr. Henderson of threatening him.

1 Officer Pebbles, Defendant Laban, John Doe, and Sgt. Fagorie are not listed as defendants in the caption or parties section of the complaint, but Mr. Henderson refers to them as defendants in the body of the complaint. Construing his complaint liberally, the Court discusses the claims against them. Again, Mr. Henderson believed Officer Bice was motivated by retaliatory animus because he had not threatened Officer Bice; rather, Officer Bice had threatened him with the pepper spray.

Mr. Henderson was placed in a restraint chair and brought to a segregation unit. Upon his arrival, Mr. Henderson told Sgt. Thrasher that Mr. Henderson was not supposed to be in disciplinary segregation due to his disability and his confinement to a wheelchair. Rather, disabled inmates should be placed in an isolation cell within the healthcare unit. When Mr. Henderson asked nearby nurses why he was being sent to segregation, they told him it was up to custody staff. During Mr. Henderson's stay in disciplinary segregation between August

22 and August 27, he was exposed to insects, rodents, and terrible heat. Mr. Henderson began to suffer from symptoms of heat exhaustion, including delusions, and he raised concerns with both custody staff and medical staff including Nurse Snowden. The staff would tell Mr. Henderson to drink water and lay down, or they would ignore him entirely. At one point, Mr. Henderson was experiencing a delusion when Officer Laban, Sgt. Fagorie, and Officer John Doe arrived at his cell and ordered him to cuff up. Mr. Henderson was apparently found on the floor of his cell with a sheet

around his neck. Sgt. Fagorie sprayed Mr. Henderson with OC spray. Officer Draghn and Officer Doe2 helped the officers with forcefully removing Mr. Henderson from his cell. The officers removed Mr. Henderson's clothes and

2 It is not clear if there were two John Doe officers or one at this particular scene. placed him in a cell naked without providing him a decontamination shower for about an hour. Defendants laughed and told him, "You think you had a bad day, just wait and see how bad of a night you're going to have." Dkt. 1 at 6. The pain

from the OC spray was exacerbated by the fact that Mr. Henderson had open ulcers. Mr. Henderson was eventually placed in a suicide watch cell for three days. During this time, he received no medical care. Mr. Henderson blames Dr. Perez for his lack of treatment because he is the head medical director at Putnamville and determines who receives care. On August 31, Mr. Henderson was removed from the suicide watch cell and placed back in the cell in the segregated housing unit. That day he received

a conduct report for threatening Officer Pebbles and Officer Bice. Disciplinary Hearing Board Officer Dinius found Mr. Henderson guilty of the conduct report and deprived him of 50 days' good credit time and a class reduction that affected when Mr. Henderson would be eligible for a time cut. Mr. Henderson's placement in segregation affected his medical condition. Nurse Snowden, Lt. Kirkland, and Medical Assistant Alisha confiscated Mr. Henderson's wheelchair despite there being no change in his medical condition for which it had been prescribed. He believes they confiscated the wheelchair in

retaliation for his grievances for complaining about his medical treatment. Although Mr. Henderson does not specify what his medical condition is, he states that he suffers from open and festering ulcers, inflammation, neuropathy, and recurring viruses that could result in him losing his limbs or sight or even result in his death. Medical Defendants Perez, Snowden, and Alisha have refused to reissue the wheelchair or adjust his medications. II. Discussion of Claims

District courts are encouraged to review complaints to ensure that unrelated claims against different defendants do not proceed in a single lawsuit. See Owens v. Godinez, 860 F.3d 434, 436 (7th Cir. 2017); see also Antoine v. Ramos, 497 F. App'x 631, 635 (7th Cir. 2012) ("[T]he district court should have rejected [plaintiff's] attempt to sue 20 defendants in a single lawsuit raising claims unique to some but not all of them.") (citing Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d 680, 683 (7th Cir. 2012)); Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 952 (7th Cir. 2011). The plaintiff is not permitted to treat a single federal

complaint as a sort of general list of grievances. Mitchell v. Kallas, 895 F.3d 492, 502–03 (7th Cir.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Owens v. Hinsley
635 F.3d 950 (Seventh Circuit, 2011)
Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc.
689 F.3d 680 (Seventh Circuit, 2012)
George v. Smith
507 F.3d 605 (Seventh Circuit, 2007)
Charles Beal, Jr. v. James Beller
847 F.3d 897 (Seventh Circuit, 2017)
James Owens v. Salvador Godinez
860 F.3d 434 (Seventh Circuit, 2017)
UWM Student Association v. Michael Lovell
888 F.3d 854 (Seventh Circuit, 2018)
Roy Mitchell, Jr. v. Kevin Kallas
895 F.3d 492 (Seventh Circuit, 2018)
Antoine v. Ramos
497 F. App'x 631 (Seventh Circuit, 2012)
Ralph Lisby v. Jonathan Henderson
74 F.4th 470 (Seventh Circuit, 2023)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Duke Henderson v. Pablo Perez, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duke-henderson-v-pablo-perez-et-al-insd-2026.