BENEFIEL v. RUTLEDGE et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
SEAN QUINTON BENEFIEL, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:25-cv-00706-SEB-KMB
)
CENTURION HEALTH SERVICES, LLP, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND
DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL
Plaintiff Sean Quinton Benefiel, who is incarcerated at New Castle Correctional Facility
("New Castle"), asks the Court for leave to amend his complaint. Dkt. [41]. He has also filed a
motion asking for the appointment of counsel. Dkt. [27]. For the reasons below, that motion for
leave to amend is granted and the motion for counsel is denied.
I. 	Motion for Leave to Amend
Mr. Benefiel initiated this lawsuit by filing a complaint on April 11, 2025. Dkt. 1. Because
Mr. Benefiel is a "prisoner," the Court screened that complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a),
(c). Dkt. 16. The Court determined that the action would proceed on Mr. Benefiel's Eighth
Amendment claims against Centurion, Sergeant Gilbert, Officers Rice, Salgado, and Fennig, and
Nurse Lee and his First Amendment retaliation claim against Officer Salgado.1 Id. at 5. The Court
dismissed claims brought against an unknown doctor but told Mr. Benefiel he could seek leave to
add a claim against the doctor if the doctor's identity became known. Id. at 4–5.
1 According to the correctional defendants' answer, dkt. 32, the correct spelling of the surnames of the defendants
identified as "Selgado" and "Finning" by Mr. Benefiel are "Salgado" and "Fennig." Dkt. 32 at 1.
Case 1:25-cv-00706-SEB-KMB Document 46 Filed 03/13/26 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
In the motion to amend, Mr. Benefiel states that he did not have his medical records when
filing his original complaint, so he did not know the names of all of the defendants. The Court is
to "freely give leave when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Finding that justice requires
it, the Court grants leave to file the amended complaint. However, the Court must still screen the
amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c).
A. Screening Standard
When screening a complaint, the Court must dismiss any portion that is frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). To determine whether the complaint states a
claim, the Court applies the same standard as when addressing a motion to dismiss under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Schillinger v. Kiley, 954 F.3d 990, 993 (7th Cir. 2020). Under
that standard, a complaint must include "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). "A claim has facial plausibility
when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
The Court construes pro se complaints liberally and holds them to a "less stringent standard than
pleadings drafted by lawyers." Cesal v. Moats, 851 F.3d 714, 720 (7th Cir. 2017).
B. The Amended Complaint
The Court accepts Mr. Benefiel's factual allegations as true at the pleading stage but not
his legal conclusions. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 ("we must take all of the factual allegations in the
complaint as true," but "we 'are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual
allegation'") (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555)).
Case 1:25-cv-00706-SEB-KMB Document 46 Filed 03/13/26 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
In the amended complaint, Mr. Benefiel names Dr. Thomas Millikan, Nurse Darlene Lee,
Officer Fennig, Officer Salgado, Centurion Health of Indiana, LLC ("Centurion"), Dr. Rodolfo
Echeverria, and NP Teah Jackar as defendants. Dkt 41-2 at 1–2.
Mr. Benefiel alleges that on August 12, 2024, Dr. Thomas Millikan took multiple hours to
respond to Mr. Benefiel's complaints of swollen testicles, a knot in his groin, and severe pain,
resulting in the loss of Mr. Benefiel's left testicle. Id. at 9, 11. Dr. Millikan also refused to provide
Mr. Benefiel with a wheelchair or gurney despite his excruciating pain, which was exacerbated by
walking. Id. at 9–10. Despite Mr. Benefiel being prescribed levofloxacin, he did not timely receive
it. Id. at 10. Mr. Benefiel alleges that he received delayed healthcare from Dr. Millikan in retaliation
for the grievances and complaints that he files. Id. at 10.
Mr. Benefiel alleges that Nurse Darlene Lee refused to call a signal for a medical
emergency for him despite his swollen testicles and extreme pain. Id. at 13. Nurse Lee stated that
she was aware of his situation but could not help as she was busy passing out medication. Id.
Mr. Benefiel alleges that Officer Salgado refused to call a signal for Mr. Benefiel, despite
his obvious and severe pain. Id. at 15. He knew that medical was not responding in a timely manner
but did nothing about it. Id. He also made Mr. Benefiel walk despite knowing that it was causing
severe pain. Id. at 16. Mr. Benefiel also alleges that Officer Salgado denied him cold drinking
water and said he would "fuck [him] up" if Mr. Benefiel did not stop filing grievances against him.
Id.
Mr. Benefiel alleges that Officer Fennig, the officer assigned to transport Mr. Benefiel for
emergency medical care, initially refused to get a wheelchair or gurney or call a signal for Mr.
Benefiel. Id. at 14. Then, once she did get a wheelchair, she refused to push it. Id.
Case 1:25-cv-00706-SEB-KMB Document 46 Filed 03/13/26 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
Mr. Benefiel alleges that Centurion has a practice, policy, or custom of inadequately
staffing medical personnel at New Castle and denying pain medication and wound care and that,
through this, Centurion violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment. Id. at 3–4.
Mr. Benefiel alleges Dr. Rodolfo Echeverria violated his Eighth Amendment rights by not
prescribing antibiotics and pain medication or providing instructions for post-operative care after
Mr. Benefiel's left testicle was surgically removed. Id. at 8. Mr. Benefiel alleges this resulted in an
infection and months of severe pain. Id.
Mr. Benefiel alleges NP Teah Jackar violated his Eighth Amendment rights by rescheduling
his medical appointment from August 29, 2024, to October 5, 2024 (though he was ultimately seen
on September 10), even though she knew Mr. Benefiel was in severe pain, had an infection, and
needed pain medication, antibiotics, and dressings. Id. at 5–6.
Mr. Benefiel requests monetary damages and a sincere apology.
C. Discussion of Claims
Although a plaintiff need not plead legal theories in a complaint, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a),
Mr. Benefiel has identified the theories he wishes to use—Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual
punishment through deliberate indifference and through failure to intervene and First Amendment
retaliation. Where a pro se litigant has expressly stated the legal theories he wishes to pursue, the
district court is not required to analyze whether the allegations in the complaint might state a claim
under a different legal theory. See Larry v. Goldsmith, 799 F. App'x 413, 416 (7th Cir. 2016) (citing
Clancy v. Office of Foreign Assets Control of U.S. Dep't of Treasury, 559 F.3d 595, 606-07 (7th
Cir. 2009)). Thus, the Court analyzes Mr. Benefiel's claims only under the theories he has
identified.
Case 1:25-cv-00706-SEB-KMB Document 46 Filed 03/13/26 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
The claims which shall proceed are the following. Mr. Benefiel's claim that he was denied
medical care for his testicular torsion shall proceed as an Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference claim against Dr. Millikan, Nurse Lee, Officer Finning, Officer Salgado2, NP Teah
Jackar, and Dr. Rodolfo Echeverria. This claim shall also proceed against Centurion under the
theory recognized in Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). A claim of retaliation in
violation of the First Amendment for filing grievances and complaints will also proceed against
Dr. Millikan and Officer Salgado.
This summary of claims includes all of the viable claims identified by the Court. All other
claims have been dismissed. If the plaintiff believes that additional claims were alleged in the
complaint, but not identified by the Court, he shall have through March 31, 2026, in which to file
a motion to reconsider the screening order.
Because Mr. Benefiel did not name Rice or Sgt. Gilbert as defendants in his amended
complaint, they are dismissed.
II. 	Motion for Counsel
Litigants in federal civil cases do not have a constitutional or statutory right to court-
appointed counsel. Walker v. Price, 900 F.3d 933, 938 (7th Cir. 2018). Instead, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(1) gives courts the authority to "request" counsel. Mallard v. United States District
Court, 490 U.S. 296, 300 (1989). As a practical matter, there are not enough lawyers willing and
qualified to accept a pro bono assignment in every pro se case. See Watts v. Kidman, 42 F.4th 755,
764 (7th Cir. 2022) (explaining that courts must be careful stewards of the limited resource of
volunteer lawyers); Olson v. Morgan, 750 F.3d 708, 711 (7th Cir. 2014) ("Whether to recruit an
2 Although Mr. Benefiel characterizes the deliberate indifference claim against Officer Salgado as a "failure to protect"
claim, the Court understands that he is asserting a claim that Officer Salgado was deliberately indifferent to his serious
medical needs because he was aware that Mr. Benefiel had a serious medical issue that medical staff was failing to
treat. See McGee v. Parsano, 55 F.4th 563, 569 (7th Cir. 2022).
Case 1:25-cv-00706-SEB-KMB Document 46 Filed 03/13/26 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
attorney is a difficult decision: Almost everyone would benefit from having a lawyer, but there are
too many indigent litigants and too few lawyers willing and able to volunteer for these cases.").
"'When confronted with a request under § 1915(e)(1) for pro bono counsel, the district
court is to make the following inquiries: (1) has the indigent plaintiff made a reasonable attempt
to obtain counsel or been effectively precluded from doing so; and if so, (2) given the difficulty of
the case, does the plaintiff appear competent to litigate it himself?'" Eagan v. Dempsey, 987 F.3d
667, 682 (7th Cir. 2021) (quoting Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 2007)). These two
questions "must guide" the Court's determination whether to attempt to recruit counsel. Id. These
questions require an individualized assessment of the plaintiff, the claims, and the stage of
litigation. See Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 655-56.
The first question, whether litigants have made a reasonable attempt to secure private
counsel on their own, "is a mandatory, threshold inquiry that must be determined before moving
to the second inquiry." Eagan, 987 F.3d at 682. Mr. Benefiel has attempted to contact multiple
attorneys with requests for representation without success. The Court finds that he has made a
reasonable effort to recruit counsel on his own before seeking the Court's assistance. He should
continue his efforts to find counsel.
"The second inquiry requires consideration of both the factual and legal complexity of the
plaintiff's claims and the competence of the plaintiff to litigate those claims himself." Eagan,
987 F.3d at 682 (citing Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 655). "The court's competency evaluation should account
for 'the plaintiff's literacy, communication skills, educational level, and litigation experience,' and,
to the extent that such evidence is before the court, information 'bearing on the plaintiff's
intellectual capacity and psychological history.'" Watts, 42 F.4th at 760 (quoting Pruitt, 503 F.3d
at 655). "Specifically, courts should consider 'whether the difficulty of the case—factually and
Case 1:25-cv-00706-SEB-KMB Document 46 Filed 03/13/26 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
legally—exceeds the particular plaintiff's capacity as a layperson to coherently present it to the
judge or jury himself.'" Eagan, 987 F.3d at 682 (quoting Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 655). "This assessment
of the plaintiff's apparent competence extends beyond the trial stage of proceedings; it must include
'the tasks that normally attend litigation: evidence gathering, preparing and responding to motions
and other court filings, and trial.'" Id. (quoting Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 655).
Mr. Benefiel states that this case is complex and will require research and investigation that
he cannot complete while incarcerated. However, the facts of the case are largely known to Mr.
Benefiel already. He knows the treatment he was or was not provided, he personally heard the
statements made to him, and he has received his medical records, which he has successfully used
to name new defendants in this litigation. He appears capable of representing himself in this case
at the present time.
Mr. Benefiel states that he cannot represent himself because he has limited law library
access. This is a challenge faced by most incarcerated litigants. He may file motions for extensions
of time when appropriate if he cannot meet a deadline due to limited law library access. See Decker
v. Sireveld, 109 F.4th 975, 984−85 (7th Cir. 2024) (finding no abuse of discretion when court
denied the plaintiff's request for counsel because, despite being housed in a restricted housing unit
with limited law library access, the court explained that it could extend deadlines as needed).
The Court will deny Mr. Benefiel's motion for assistance recruiting counsel.
III. 	Conclusion and Service of Process
Mr. Benefiel's motion for assistance recruiting counsel is denied without prejudice. Dkt.
27. The clerk is directed to send him a motion for assistance recruiting counsel form, which he
must use if he chooses to renew his motion. The Court will remain alert to changes in
Case 1:25-cv-00706-SEB-KMB Document 46 Filed 03/13/26 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
circumstances that may warrant reconsideration of the motion, such as a settlement conference or
trial.
The Court grants the motion to amend the complaint. Dkt. [41]. The clerk is directed to
docket pages 1-21 of the document at docket [41-2] as the amended complaint, and pages 22-123
as exhibits in support of the amended complaint.
The following claims are proceeding in this action: Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference claims against Centurion, Dr. Millikan, Nurse Lee, Officer Fennig, Officer Salgado,
NP Teah Jackar, and Dr. Rodolfo Echeverria and First Amendment retaliation claims against Dr.
Millikan and Officer Salgado.
The clerk is directed to terminate Rice and Sgt. Gilbert as defendants on the docket, to
add Dr. Thomas Millikan, NP Teah Jackar, and Dr. Rodolfo Echevarria as defendants on the docket,
and to update the spelling of Defendant "Selgado" to "Salgado" and "Finning" to "Fennig."
The clerk is directed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to defendants Dr.
Thomas Millikan, NP Teah Jackar, and Dr. Rodolfo Echevarria in the manner specified by Rule
4(d). Process shall consist of the amended complaint filed on February 4, 2026, dkt. [41-2],
applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver
of Service of Summons), and this Order.
The clerk is directed to serve the Centurion employees electronically.
Defendants Dr. Thomas Millikan and NP Teah Jackar are believed to be employees of
Centurion. A copy of this Order and the process documents shall also be served on Centurion
electronically. Centurion is ORDERED to provide the full name and last known home address of
any defendant who does not waive service if they have such information. This information shall
be filed ex parte.
Case 1:25-cv-00706-SEB-KMB Document 46 Filed 03/13/26 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
Nothing in this Order prohibits the filing of a proper motion pursuant to Rule 12 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: _____________________
Distribution:
Electronic service to Centurion
Dr. Thomas Millikan
NP Teah Jackar
Dr. Rodolfo Echevarria
Henry Community Health
1000 N. 16th St.
New Castle, IN 47362
SEAN QUINTON BENEFIEL
179610
NEW CASTLE – CF
NEW CASTLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Inmate Mail/Parcels
1000 Van Nuys Road
P.O. Box E
NEW CASTLE, IN 47362
David Douglas Becsey
ZEIGLER COHEN & KOCH
dbecsey@zcklaw.com
Roger K. Kanne
ZEIGLER COHEN & KOCH
rkanne@zcklaw.com
Joseph Thomas Lipps
BBFCS ATTORNEYS
jlipps@bbfcslaw.com
_______________________________
SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
3/13/2026
Case 1:25-cv-00706-SEB-KMB Document 46 Filed 03/13/26 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>