Boyd v. Madison County Council – Motion to Amend Granted, Complaint Dismissed for Misjoinder

Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

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 21, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Derek Boyd v. Madison County Council, in their individual and official capacities, Madison County Prosecutor’s Office, in its individual and official capacities, Elwood Police Officers, in their individual and official capacities, Madison County Prosecutors Office, in their individual and official capacities, City of Elwood – Mayor, in his individual and official capacities, Elwood Chief of Police, in his individual and official capacity

District Court, S.D. Indiana

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1:25-cv-02094

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (9)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (7.4K)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

DEREK BOYD, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 1:25-cv-02094-JRO-MJD
)
MADISON COUNTY COUNCIL, in their )
individual and official capacities, )
MADISON COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S )
OFFICE, in its individual and official )
capacities, )
ELWOOD POLICE OFFICERS, in their )
individual and official capacities, )
MADISON COUNTY PROSECUTORS )
OFFICE, in their individual and official )
capacities, )
CITY OF ELWOOD – MAYOR, in his )
individual and official capacities, )
ELWOOD CHIEF OF POLICE, in his )
individual and official capacity, )
)
Defendants. )

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT,
SCREENING AMENDED COMPLAINT, SEVERING CLAIMS, AND
DIRECTING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

Plaintiff Derek Boyd is a prisoner currently incarcerated at Branchville
Correctional Facility (“Branchville”). Boyd filed this civil action in Perry Superior
Court in Perry County, Indiana, on September 22, 2025. Dkt. 1-2. Defendants
City of Elwood - Mayor (the “Mayor”) and Elwood Chief of Police removed that
case, Boyd v. City of Elwood, No. 62C01-2509-CT-000565, to this Court. No
other defendants had yet appeared. Boyd has since filed a motion for leave to
amend his complaint. The motion, dkt. [27], is GRANTED. Because Boyd is
incarcerated and has sued government officials, the Court “assess[es] 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 AMENDED COMPLAINT
Boyd names nine defendants and alleges various constitutional violations
and tortious conduct in his amended complaint. Generally, he alleges that he
owned a duplex in Elwood, Indiana, with two addresses: 1812 South G Street,
and 1812½ South G Street. He lived in one of the units. On August 6, 2024, a
search warrant was executed at the duplex which had a discrepancy related to
these addresses. The search warrant resulted in criminal charges and a guilty
plea. He pursues 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law tort claims against:
 Marcus Shoppell, the Elwood Chief of Police, Tyler Irwin, and
the Madison County Prosecutor’s Office for the address
discrepancy in the search warrant;

 the Madison County Prosecutor’s Office and Rodney
Cummings for coercing his guilty plea; and

 the Madison County Council, the Mayor, the Madison County
Prosecutor’s Office, the Elwood Ordinance Violation Office,
and the Madison County Board of Commissioners for a bevy
of alleged policies related to the two aforementioned
allegations.

II. DISCUSSION AND SEVERANCE OF CLAIMS
District courts are encouraged to review complaints to ensure that
plaintiffs do not “toss[] into a single complaint a mishmash of unrelated
allegations against unrelated defendants.” 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); and George v. Smith, [507

F.3d 605, 607](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1435220/george-v-smith/#607) (7th Cir. 2007))). A plaintiff is not permitted to treat a single
federal complaint as a general list of grievances. See Mitchell v. Kallas, 895 F.3d
492, 502–03 (7th Cir. 2018) (“Out of concern about unwieldy litigation and
attempts to circumvent the [Prison Litigation Reform Act]’s fee requirements, we
have urged district courts and defendants to beware of ‘scattershot’ pleading
strategies.”).
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18 and 20 guide the Court’s analysis.
Rule 20 permits a plaintiff to join defendants in a single action if “any right to

relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect
to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or
occurrences,” and “any question of law or fact common to all defendants will
arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). “[M]ere overlap between defendants
is not enough.” Thompson v. Bukowski, 812 F. App’x 360, 363 (7th Cir. 2020).
Once Rule 20 is satisfied, “[a] party asserting a claim . . . may join, as
independent or alternative claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing
party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a); see UWM Student Ass’n v. Lovell, 888 F.3d 854, 863 (7th Cir. 2018) (court must apply Rule 20 before Rule 18). “Thus multiple claims
against a single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be
joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2.” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d
605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).
Boyd’s amended complaint cannot proceed as currently presented. The
amended complaint violates Rule 20, as it advances unrelated claims against
separate defendants based on separate events. While he alleges, in conclusory

fashion, a grand conspiracy to be afoot, and while his factual allegations provide
a coherent narrative, the resulting claims do not “aris[e] out of the same
transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 20(a)(2)(A). There is no common question of law or fact that ties together the
claims about the search warrant and the claims about the coerced plea. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(B).
IV. DISMISSAL AND DEADLINE FOR FURTHER AMENDMENT
Boyd’s motion for leave to amend his complaint, dkt. [27], is GRANTED.

The first amended complaint, dkt. 27-1, does not describe any single transaction,
occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences involving all nine
defendants. Nor does it raise any question of fact or law common to all nine
defendants. Therefore, Boyd’s claims against these nine defendants may not be
joined into a single lawsuit.
Where a plaintiff has filed a complaint that violates Rule 20, the Seventh
Circuit has suggested that the best approach is to explain the problem, dismiss
the complaint without prejudice, and provide leave to amend. Dorsey, 55 F.4th

at 1107 (“We suggest a district court faced with misjoined claims begin . . . by
striking the complaint, explaining the misjoinder, and giving the plaintiff at least
one chance to fix the problem.”). The Court will follow this approach here.
Accordingly, the first amended complaint is DISMISSED for failure to

comply with Rule 20. Boyd shall have through May 18, 2026, to file a second
amended complaint that complies with Rule 20 by alleging only those claims that
arise out of “the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or
occurrences.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A). Boyd may then file separate lawsuits
about any other claims if he wishes. See Myles v. United States, 416 F.3d 551,
552 (7th Cir. 2005) (noting that the composition and content of the complaint
are entirely the responsibility of the plaintiff, for “even pro se litigants are masters
of their own complaints and may choose who to sue—or not to sue”). If Boyd

files a second amended complaint, it will be screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b). If no second amended complaint is filed, this action may be
dismissed without further notice or opportunity to show cause.
The second amended complaint should have the proper case number,
1:25-cv-02094-JRO-MJD, and the words “Second Amended Complaint” on the
first page. The second amended complaint will completely replace the first
amended complaint. See Beal v. Beller, 847 F.3d 897, 901 (7th Cir. 2017) (“For
pleading purposes, once an amended complaint is filed, the original complaint

drops out of the picture.”). Therefore, it must set out every defendant, claim,
and factual allegation Boyd wishes to pursue in this action, within the
requirements of Rule 20, as discussed above.
The second amended complaint must: (1) contain a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief sufficient to
provide the defendant with fair notice of the claim and its basis; (2) include a
demand for the relief sought; and (3) identify what injury he claims to have
suffered and what persons are responsible for each such injury. The clerk is
directed to include a copy of the prisoner civil rights complaint form along with
Boyd’s copy of this Order, which he must use if he files a second amended
complaint. See S.D. Ind. L.R. 8-1 (requiring pro se plaintiffs to use the clerk-
provided form for claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983).
The Court acknowledges receipt of defendants Elwood Chief of Police and
Mayor’s Notice of the Motion to Consolidate in Boyd v. Elwood Police Office et al.,
No. 1:25-cv-02093-MPB-MKK. Consolidation will not be appropriate until the
claims proceeding in both matters are determined.
SO ORDERED.
Date: 4/21/2026
R. Olson
United States District Judge
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:

DEREK BOYD
273507
BRANCHVILLE - CF
BRANCHVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Electronic Service Participant – Court Only

Caren L. Pollack
POLLACK LAW FIRM, P.C.
cpollack@pollacklawpc.com