Ricardo Bustos v. Lake Station Police Department — Excessive Force Claim, Leave to Amend
Summary
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana evaluated Ricardo Bustos's in forma pauperis complaint alleging that Officers Jezerski and Koselke, Corporal Dokmanovic, Detective Boney, and the Lake Station Police Department used excessive force during a home arrest in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1983. Applying the pleading standards under Ashcroft v. Iqbal and its progeny, the Court found the complaint insufficient because it failed to plausibly connect each named defendant to the alleged misconduct — the pleading attributed conduct only to unidentified "Officers" without specificity. The Court granted Bustos until April 30, 2026 to file an amended complaint and cautioned that failure to do so would result in dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A without further notice.
“In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, Officer Jezerski, Officer Koselke, Lake Station Police Department, Corporal Dokmanovic, and Detective Boney, violated 18 U.S.C. § 1983 when they used excessive force when entering his home to arrest him.”
About this source
GovPing monitors US District Court NDIN Docket Feed for new courts & legal regulatory changes. Every update since tracking began is archived, classified, and available as free RSS or email alerts — 3 changes logged to date.
What changed
The Court evaluated whether Ricardo Bustos's pro se complaint stating a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force survived the threshold review required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The Court determined that while the financial prong for in forma pauperis status was satisfied, the complaint failed the merit prong because it did not plausibly allege each named defendant's personal involvement in the use of force — a requirement established by Seventh Circuit precedent. The Court's order takes the IFP motion under advisement and provides plaintiff with an opportunity to cure the pleading deficiency rather than dismissing the case outright. For law enforcement defendants, this case underscores that section 1983 claims require specific factual allegations linking each individual officer to the constitutional violation, not group-pleading or collective references to unnamed officers.
What to do next
- File amended complaint by April 30, 2026 if plaintiff can adequately connect specific defendants to the alleged illegal acts
Archived snapshot
Apr 24, 2026GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.
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.
April 2, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
Ricardo Bustos v. Lake Station Police Department, et al.
District Court, N.D. Indiana
- Citations: None known
- Docket Number: 2:26-cv-00140
Precedential Status: Unknown Status
Trial Court Document
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
RICARDO BUSTOS,
Plaintiff,
v. CAUSE NO. 2:26-CV-00140
LAKE STATION POLICE DEPARTMENT,
et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Ricardo Bustos, proceeding without the benefit of a lawyer, initiated this case and
filed a motion asking to proceed in forma pauperis on March 27, 2026.
When presented with an IFP application filed by a non-prisoner, the district court makes two
determinations: (1) whether the suit has sufficient merit; and (2) whether the plaintiff’s poverty level
justifies IFP status. See 28 U.S.C. section 1915 (e)(2). If a court finds that the suit lacks sufficient
merit or that an inadequate showing of poverty exists, the court must deny the IFP petition. Smith v.
Galipeau, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113411, at *1 (N.D. Ind. Jun. 27, 2024); see Smith-Bey v. Hospital
Adm’r, 841 F.2d 751, 757 (7th Cir. 1988). A court must dismiss a case any time it determines that the
suit is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §
1915 (e)(2)(B).
To determine whether the suit states a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii), a court
applies the same standard as it would to a motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). Smith, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113411, at *2 (citing Tate v. SCR Med. Transp., 809 F.3d 343, 345 (7th Cir. 2015)). To survive dismissal, a “complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Relevant to the case at bar, “[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) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
In this case, Plaintiff satisfies the financial prong of the analysis, so the Court turns to whether
the suit has sufficient merit to proceed. In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, Officer
Jezerski, Officer Koselke, Lake Station Police Department, Corporal Dokmanovic, and Detective
Boney, violated 18 U.S.C. § 1983 when they used excessive force when entering his home to arrest
him. [DE 1 at 2]. While he describes the events that took place and the force used, he fails to specify
each of the named Defendants involvement with said events. [Id.]. Rather, he claims that “Officers
were on top of [him]” and “Officers hit [him].” [Id.]. Although the Court could infer that “Officers”
refer to Defendants Jezerski and Koselke, there are no allegations in the Complaint tying the
remaining Defendants, Lake Station Police Department, Corporal Dokmanovic, and Detective Boney,
to the misconduct complained of. This is insufficient, even when construed liberally, to plausibly state
a claim for relief against each of named Defendants. See Orr v. Shicker, 147 F.4th 734, 741 (7th Cir.
2025) (holding that “plaintiffs must adequately connect specific defendants to illegal acts” in order to
state a plausible claim for relief).
If Plaintiff believes that he can state a claim against each of the named Defendants based on
the events described in the 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 amended would not be futile.” Abu-Shawish v. United States, 898 F.3d 726, 738 (7th Cir.
2018).
For these reasons, the Court:
(1) TAKES UNDER ADVISEMENT the Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis [DE 2];
(2) GRANTS Plaintiff until April 30, 2026 to file an amended complaint; and,
(3) CAUTIONS Plaintiff that if he does not respond by the deadline, this case will be
dismissed pursuant to 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 2, 2026.
s/ Gretchen S. Lund
JUDGE GRETCHEN S. LUND
UNITED STATES
Named provisions
Parties
Related changes
Get daily alerts for US District Court NDIN Docket Feed
Daily digest delivered to your inbox.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
About this page
Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission
Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from NDIN.
The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when US District Court NDIN Docket Feed publishes new changes.
Subscribed!
Optional. Filters your digest to exactly the updates that matter to you.