Opinion
2:24-cv-281
11-20-2024
KELVIN MCGILL & PAMELA HORNE, Plaintiffs, v. HAMMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT & CITY OF HAMMOND, INDIANA, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ANDREW P. RODOVICH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
In response to the court's sua sponte order [DE 29] providing 7 days for the parties to object to the dismissal of the Hammond Police Department, Plaintiffs argue that the Hammond Police Department should remain a party. [DE 30]. In Sow v. Fortville Police Department, 636 F.3d 293, 300 (7th Cir. 2011), the Seventh Circuit instructed that local government liability under § 1983 “is dependent on an analysis of state law.” See McMillian v. Monroe County, 520 U.S. 781, 786, 117 S.Ct. 1734, 138 L.Ed.2d 1 (1997). Under Indiana law, a “[m]unicipal corporation” is a “unit, ... or other separate local governmental entity that may sue and be sued.” Ind. Code § 36-1-2-10. A “‘[u]nit‘ means county, municipality, or township,” Ind. Code § 36-1-2-23, and a “[municipality” is a “city or town,” Ind. Code § 36-1-2-11. Thus, the Indiana statutory scheme does not grant municipal police departments the capacity to sue or be sued. See Martin v. Fort Wayne Police Dep't., 2010 WL 4876728, at *3 (N.D. Ind. 2010).
In Plaintiffs' response [DE 30] to the court's order, Plaintiffs cite to Indiana law. [DE 30]. However, this case is governed by federal law as the case was removed pursuant to allegations of federal questions. [DE 1]. Given the claims raised, this Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331 and 28 U.S.C.§1367.
In Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), the United States Supreme Court held that municipalities are liable under § 1983 when they implement a policy officially adopted and promulgated by the municipality's officers. Plaintiffs attempt to avoid the Monell issue by citing to Indiana cases that would permit the Hammond Police Department to be sued as an extension of the City of Hammond. [DE 30]. Again, however, this case is governed by federal law, not Indiana law.
Accordingly, the court RECOMMENDS that the District Court ORDER that the Hammond Police Department be DISMISSED from the case.
This Report and Recommendation is submitted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties shall have fourteen days after being served with a copy of this Recommendation to file written objections thereto with the Clerk of Court. The failure to file a timely objection will result in waiver of the right to challenge this Recommendation before either the District Court or the Court of Appeals. Willis v. Caterpillar, Inc., 199 F.3d 902, 904 (7th Cir. 1999); Hunger v. Leininger, 15 F.3d 664, 668 (7th Cir. 1994); The Provident Bank v. Manor Steel Corp., 882 F.2d 258, 260-261 (7th Cir. 1989); Lebovitz v. Miller, 856 F.2d 902, 905 n.2 (7th Cir. 1988).