GRIFFIN v. EVANS

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana
DecidedJanuary 3, 2020
Docket1:19-cv-00882
StatusUnknown

This text of GRIFFIN v. EVANS (GRIFFIN v. EVANS) 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
GRIFFIN v. EVANS, (S.D. Ind. 2020).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

VIRGIL GRIFFIN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 1:19-cv-00882-JPH-MPB ) C. EVANS, et al. ) ) Defendants. )

Order Denying Motion to Reconsider

The plaintiff’s motion to reconsider, dkt. [125], is denied. In its Entry dated December 9, 2019, the Court allowed the plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims alleging deliberate indifference to a serious medical need to proceed against Lieutenant McCutcheon, Sergeant Sarten, Dr. Talbot, Nurse Moore-Groves, Nurse Walker, and Director of Nurse Stephens. See dkt. 119. In the same Entry, the Court dismissed the plaintiff’s breach of contract claims. Id. The plaintiff now contends that the Court should have inferred that his breach of contract claims were based on the theory that the plaintiff is a third-party beneficiary to a contract between Wexford and the Indiana Department of Correction. Dkt. 125. While a pro se complaint should be construed liberally, see Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 776 (7th Cir. 2015), the plaintiff alleged no facts from which the Court could have inferred that the plaintiff stated a breach of contract claim as a third-party beneficiary. Specifically, in Indiana, a third party may sue to enforce a contract if it “clearly appear[s] that it was the purpose or a purpose of the contract to impose an obligation on one of the contracting parties in favor of the third party.” Cain v. Griffin, 849 N.E.2d 507, 514 (Ind. 2006) (quoting OEC-Diasonics, Inc. v. Major, 674 N.E.2d 1312, 1315 (Ind. 1996)). The plaintiff made no factual allegations about the terms of the contract between Wexford and the Indiana Department of Correction, including any allegations that a clear purpose of the contract is to impose an obligation on one of the contracting parties in favor of the plaintiff. SO ORDERED. Date: 1/3/2020 S\amnu Patruck anor James Patrick Hanlon United States District Judge Southern District of Indiana Distribution: VIRGIL GRIFFIN 998996 PENDLETON - CF PENDLETON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Inmate Mail/Parcels 4490 West Reformatory Road PENDLETON, IN 46064 Douglass R. Bitner KATZ KORIN CUNNINGHAM, P.C. dbitner @kkclegal.com Bryan Findley INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL bryan.findley @ atg.in.gov Matthew Stephen Koressel INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL matthew.koressel @ atg.in.gov Sarah Jean Shores INDIANA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL sarah.shores @ atg.in.gov Jordan Michael Stover INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL jordan.stover@ atg.in.gov

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

Related

Cain v. Griffin
849 N.E.2d 507 (Indiana Supreme Court, 2006)
OEC-Diasonics, Inc. v. Major
674 N.E.2d 1312 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1996)
Miguel Perez v. James Fenoglio
792 F.3d 768 (Seventh Circuit, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
GRIFFIN v. EVANS, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/griffin-v-evans-insd-2020.