Bostic v. Pence
2:15-cv-00429-JPK
N.D. Ind.Apr 13, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Lorena Bostic alleged her Lake County probation officer, Miroslav Radiceski, sexually assaulted her and later filed a malicious petition to revoke her probation; initial complaints named the State of Indiana and Lake County among others.
- Lake County defendants (county, board, and officials) filed a crossclaim against the State asserting (Count I) indemnity/partial liability for negligence claims in the Amended Complaint and (Count II) a duty-to-defend/indemnify claim for state employees Parsons and Radiceski.
- Plaintiff later filed a Second Amended Complaint dropping the state-law negligence claim and eliminating Lake County and the State as defendants; remaining claims were § 1983 and willful/wanton misconduct against individual defendants.
- The State moved for judgment on the pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) seeking dismissal of both crossclaim counts.
- The court applied the Rule 12(c)/12(b)(6) standard (Twombly/Iqbal line) and determined Count I was moot because the controlling complaint no longer included negligence claims; Count II involved a novel state-law issue (whether probation officers are state or county employees), parties are non-diverse Indiana entities, and the State asserted Eleventh Amendment immunity.
- The court granted judgment on the pleadings: Count I dismissed with prejudice; Count II dismissed without prejudice for the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether State is liable for negligence-based damages/costs in Count I | Lake County: State must indemnify/cover any negligence liability alleged in Amended Complaint | Indiana: moved to dismiss; argued claim improper/moot after pleadings changed | Dismissed with prejudice — Count I moot because Second Amended Complaint dropped negligence claims |
| Whether State must defend/indemnify Parsons and Radiceski (Count II) | Lake County: Parsons and Radiceski are state employees; State must defend and pay judgments/fees | Indiana: contends probation officers are county employees; also asserts Eleventh Amendment immunity to damages | Court declined supplemental jurisdiction over Count II (novel state-law issue, nondiverse parties, Eleventh Amendment concerns); Count II dismissed without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility and limits on conclusory allegations)
- Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074 (complaint factual sufficiency standard in Seventh Circuit)
- Supreme Laundry Serv., LLC v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., 521 F.3d 743 (Rule 12(c) standard same as 12(b)(6))
- Gibson v. City of Chicago, 910 F.2d 1510 (Rule 12(c) motion principles)
- Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574 (pleading standards post-Twombly/Iqbal)
- Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (historical pleading standard discussed)