Jonathan W. Johnson v. Harner and Crook — Prisoner Slip-and-Fall Dismissal

Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 8, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Jonathan W. Johnson v. Harner and Crook

District Court, N.D. Indiana

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 3:26-cv-00426

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (8)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION

JONATHAN W. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v. CAUSE NO. 3:26-CV-426-TLS-JEM

HARNER and CROOK,

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER
Jonathan W. Johnson, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a complaint. ECF 1. “A
document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully
pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (cleaned up). Nevertheless, under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A, the court must review the merits of a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action is
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary
relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
Johnson, an inmate at the LaPorte County Jail, alleges that he slipped and fell in a puddle
on March 5, 2026, after his cell block floors were cleaned with a power washer. Deputy Harner,
Deputy Crook, and two trustees completed the power washing. Most of the water was mopped
up, but a few puddles remained. Following the fall, Johnson’s knee was sore.
The Eighth Amendment imposes a duty on prison officials to “take reasonable measures
to guarantee the safety of the inmates.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994) (citations
omitted). To state a claim for an Eighth Amendment violation, an inmate must allege that a
defendant was deliberately indifferent to “an excessive risk” to his health or safety. Sinn v.
Lemmon, 911 F.3d 412, 419 (7th Cir. 2018). This encompasses two elements: “(1) the harm to
which the prisoner was exposed must be an objectively serious one; and (2) judged subjectively,
the prison official must have actual, and not merely constructive, knowledge of the
risk.” Id. (cleaned up). On the second prong, the plaintiff must allege that “the defendant[] had
actual knowledge of an impending harm easily preventable, so that a conscious, culpable refusal

to prevent the harm can be inferred from the defendant’s failure to prevent it.” Santiago v. Wells, 599 F.3d 749, 756 (7th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). “[N]egligence, gross negligence, or even
recklessness as the term is used in tort cases is not enough” to state a Constitutional
claim. Hildreth v. Butler, 960 F.3d 420, 425–26 (7th Cir. 2020). Instead, the inmate must allege
“a culpability standard akin to criminal recklessness.” Thomas v. Blackard, 2 F.4th 716, 722 (7th
Cir. 2021).
Johnson alleges only that he slipped and fell after the floor was cleaned because some
water remained on the floor. These allegations are insufficient to state a claim. See Pyles v.
Fahim, 771 F.3d 403, 410 (7th Cir. 2014) (“[S]slippery surfaces and shower floors in prisons,

without more, cannot constitute a hazardous condition of confinement”); Perkins v. Atrisco, No.
3:22-CV-1052, 2023 WL 2346275, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 2, 2023) (“[F]ederal courts are
consistent in holding that slip-and-fall incidents, whether on ice, water, or slippery floors, do not
meet the deliberate indifference standard of Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement
claims.”).
This complaint does not state a claim for which relief can be granted. If Johnson believes
he can state a claim based on (and consistent with) the events described in this complaint, he may
file an amended complaint because “[t]he usual standard in civil cases is to allow defective
pleadings to be corrected, especially in early stages, at least where amendment would not be
futile.” Abu-Shawish v. United States, 898 F.3d 726, 738 (7th Cir. 2018). To file an amended
complaint, he needs to write this cause number on a Pro Se 14 (INND Rev. 2/20) Prisoner
Complaint form which is available from his law library. He needs to write the word “Amended”
on the first page above the title “Prisoner Complaint” and send it to the court after he properly
completes the form.

For these reasons, the court:
(1) GRANTS Jonathan W Johnson until May 8, 2026, to file an amended complaint; and
(2) CAUTIONS Jonathan W. Johnson if he does not respond by the deadline, this case
will be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A without further notice because the current complaint
does not state a claim for which relief can be granted.
SO ORDERED on April 8, 2026.

s/ Theresa L. Springmann
JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT