RADCLIFFE v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
TERRIS RADCLIFFE, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. 1:24-cv-01057-TWP-KMB
)
JOEL THACKER, 	)
TYLER EVAN BURGAUER, 	)
JUSTIN GUEDEL, 	)
JONATHAN WHITHAM, 	)
MATTHEW CRONLEY, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
)
)
SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION *, 	)
ERIC PROBST, 	)
Frost Brown Todd LLP, 	)
)
Intervenors. 	)
)
MILLSTONE MANAGEMENT, LLC, 	)
ADRIEN DANNEMILLER, 	)
)
Miscellaneous. 	)
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO TRANSFER VENUE
AND REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION AND CORRECTIONS
This matter is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Terris Radcliffe's ("Mr. Radcliffe")
duplicate Motions to Transfer Venue (Dkts. 117, 121) and Request for Explanation and
Corrections, which the clerk has docketed as a Motion for Court Assistance (Dkt. 122). On August
22, 2025, the Court determined that Mr. Radcliffe's § 1983 claim for a violation of equal protection
against Defendants Joel Thacker, Tyler Evan Burgauer, Matthew Cronley ("Mr. Cronley"), Justin
Guedel, and Jonathan Whitham, in their individual capacities, could proceed; as well as a
negligence claim against Mr. Cronley in his individual capacity (Dkt. 88). Mr. Radcliffe asks the
Case 1:24-cv-01057-TWP-KMB Document 125 Filed 12/15/25 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Court to transfer this action to the District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, and seeks an
explanation and correction from the Court concerning matters which occurred before this case was
transferred to the undersigned. For the following reasons, the Motions to Transfer are denied, and
the request for assistance is granted in part and denied in part.
I. 	DISCUSSION
The Court will first discuss the motions to transfer venue, before turning to the request for
an explanation and correction.
A. 	Motion for Change of Venue
A party may seek change of venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which states, "[f]or the
convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any
civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or
division to which all parties have consented." "[S]ection 1404(a) is intended to place discretion in
the district court to adjudicate motions for transfer according to a case-by-case consideration of
convenience and fairness. By the same token, [appellate courts] grant a substantial degree of
deference to the district court in deciding whether transfer is appropriate." Research Automation,
Inc. v. Schrader-Bridgeport Int'l, Inc., 626 F.3d 973, 977–78 (7th Cir. 2010) (internal citations and
punctuation omitted). The Seventh Circuit has further explained,
The statutory language guides the court's evaluation of the particular circumstances
of each case and is broad enough to allow the court to take into account all factors
relevant to convenience and/or the interests of justice. The statute permits a flexible
and individualized analysis and affords district courts the opportunity to look
beyond a narrow or rigid set of considerations in their determinations.
Id. at 978 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
Mr. Radcliffe, a resident of Fulton County, Georgia, initiated this action in this Court after
he was trapped in an elevator in a CubeSmart Self-Storage facility in Indianapolis, Indiana (Dkt.
Case 1:24-cv-01057-TWP-KMB Document 125 Filed 12/15/25 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
1). The defendants in this case are all state agencies/entities and employees, and Mr. Radcliffe
asserts Section 1983 claims against them based on improper elevator inspections and certifications.
Mr. Radcliffe has another related action pending in this Court, Radcliffe v. O'Herren, Case No.
1:24-cv-01056-TWP-KMB, which he filed the same day as this action, and which arises from the
same events in Indianapolis, however the Defendants in related case are the private companies and
individuals that own/operate the storage facility, and Mr. Radcliffe alleges breach of duty to
customers and negligent maintenance of the elevator.
Since Mr. Radcliffe initiated his lawsuits, vigorous discovery and motions practice have
ensued, and several intervenors and interested parties have appeared, all of whom are represented
by Indiana counsel. In November 2025—seventeen months after filing suit—Mr. Radcliffe moved
to transfer this action to the Northern District of Georgia, which serves Fulton County (Dkts. 117,
121). Mr. Radcliffe asserts that the "Northern District of Georgia is the proper venue for this
lawsuit because it will provide the most secure opportunity for an impartial judicial process, and
it is in the best interest of justice." Id. at 1.
There is no basis for transferring this action to the Northern District of Georgia. There are
no allegations in the Amended Complaint, which is the operative pleading, that connect any events
or parties to the Northern District of Georgia, except Mr. Radcliffe's residence there. The events at
issue took place in Indiana, and the remaining Defendants in this action are Indiana citizens and
employed by the State of Indiana. Three of the four defendants in Mr. Radcliffe's related lawsuit
are likewise Indiana citizens.1 See Case No. 1:25-cv-01056.
Further, the relevant witnesses and discovery are located in Indiana, as Mr. Radcliffe's
claims center on the State of Indiana's inspection and reporting processes for elevators, including
1 The remaining defendant in the related lawsuit, Cubesmart TRS, Inc., is a citizen of Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Case 1:24-cv-01057-TWP-KMB Document 125 Filed 12/15/25 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
the elevator at issue in this case (Dkt. 19). The Southern District of Indiana is the proper and most
convenient venue for this action, and transfer to the Northern District of Georgia is not appropriate.
Mr. Radcliffe also asserts that he is requesting transfer pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 63 (Dkts. 117,
121 at 1). As discussed below, Mr. Radcliffe has challenged the Court's impartiality in several other
filings and motions, but Mr. Radcliffe's disagreement with the court orders and personal belief
concerning bias against him is not grounds for a transfer of venue. Mr. Radcliffe has not shown
that transfer to the Northern District of Georgia is proper, so his Motions to Transfer Venue are
denied.
B. 	Motion for Assistance
In October 2024, a telephonic conference to discuss discovery disputes was scheduled in
this case, and despite valiant efforts, Mr. Radcliffe was unable to participate because he was
provided incorrect call-in information. In his Motion for Assistance, Mr. Radcliffe "requests that
the Court provide an explanation for the intentional dissemination of the incorrect call-in and
meeting identification information for the October 16, 2024, Telephonic Discovery Conference,
previously set before the Honorable Crystal S. Wildeman, United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt.
29)." (Dkt. 122). He asserts that an incorrect admonishment was made against him following
communications with a clerk's office staff member, and asserts that an inference was made on
October 16, 2024, which characterized Mr. Radcliffe as "the angry black man stereotype," such
that he challenges the Court's impartiality. Id. at 1–5.
The Motion for Assistance is granted in so far as the Court explains that the incorrect call-
in information was inadvertent, and Mr. Radcliffe was mistakenly given the incorrect information.
Magistrate Judge Wildeman acknowledged such in the October 18, 2024 minute entry.
Case 1:24-cv-01057-TWP-KMB Document 125 Filed 12/15/25 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
Plaintiff did not appear. After the conference, Plaintiff made known that he received
incorrect call-in information. The Court, being unaware of the reason for Plaintiff's
failure to appear at the time the conference commenced and having reviewed filings
and submissions of the parties in advance proceeded with the conference to make
record of the discovery issues.
. . . .
Plaintiff's absence from the Telephonic Discovery Dispute Conference was not
willful given he received incorrect call-in information. He therefore will not be
required to show cause as to his failure to appear or otherwise sanctioned for the
same.
(Dkt. 33). Thereafter, the Magistrate Judge ordered that Mr. Radcliffe must refrain from directly
contacting parties to this litigation, and instead must contact Intervenor's counsel in writing, and
that "any further contact by Plaintiff directly to Schindler's personnel regarding this case or the
subpoena will be considered a contemptuous disregard of this order. " Id. at 3. Magistrate Judge
Wildeman also issued a ruling on the discovery dispute.
On August 27, 2025, in the interest of judicial economy and pursuant to Local Rule 40-1(e)
of the Southern District of Indiana, the clerk reassigned this case to the undersigned and Magistrate
Judge Kellie M. Barr for all further proceedings (Dkt. 92). The docket entries in this case show
that discovery disputes continued after Judge Barr was assigned.
In his Motion, Mr. Radcliffe takes issue with the following admonishment:
"Plaintiff is reminded to communicate with counsel, the Court, and Court staff
respectfully. Plaintiff's verbal communications with Court staff, particularly on
October 16, 2024, were not professional and respectful. Plaintiff is hereby on notice
of 	the Court's 	expectation 	that 	all 	communications 	going 	forward 	will 	be
appropriate in tone, volume, and substance. Failure to communicate in such a
manner may result in sanctions." - Crystal S. Wildeman, United States Magistrate
Judge (Dkt. 33).
(Dkt. 122).
On October 30, 2025, following additional discovery disputes, Magistrate Judge Barr
issued an admonishment that "the Court echoes and now formally adopts an admonishment that
Case 1:24-cv-01057-TWP-KMB Document 125 Filed 12/15/25 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
U.S. Magistrate Judge Crystal Wildeman already issued to Mr. Radcliffe in a related case." (Case
No. 010564 Dkt. 132 and Case No. 01057 Dkt. 109)." (Dkt. 122 at 5–6).
Both admonishments concerned the Court's requirements of civility and professionalism.
Just as lawyers and judges have a duty to treat everyone civilly, avoid personal attacks, focus on
fair arguments, avoid demeaning language and to curb emotions, so do litigants, including those
proceeding 	pro 	se. 	Mr. 	Radcliffe 	perceived 	Judge Wildeman's 	admonishment 	to 	contain
"discriminatory racial stereotypes" and that the order and admonishment were premature (Dkt.
122). The undersigned agrees that the admonishment and resolution of the discovery dispute may
have been premature, because through no fault of Mr. Radcliffe, he was unable to participate in
the conference and present his side of the dispute. However, having reviewed the admonishments
that Mr. Radcliffe complains of, the undersigned discerns no discrimination, impartiality, or racism
of any sort.
The undersigned is fully aware that racism exists in America and aware that our varied life
experiences often influence our perceptions. The Court acknowledges Mr. Radcliffe's perceptions,
but does not perceive any of the orders to infer that Mr. Radcliffe is "an angry black man." To put
it mildly, this action is zealously litigated by both sides. Both admonishments concerned the
Court's requirements of civility and professionalism. Just as lawyers and judges have a duty to
treat everyone civilly, avoid personal attacks, focus on fair arguments, avoid demeaning language
and to curb emotions, so do litigants, including those proceeding pro se. The undersigned perceives
the challenges in this case, in part, to stem from Mr. Radcliffe's pro se status. Although pro se
status does not give a party unbridled license to disregard clearly communicated court orders; "pro
se litigants should be granted appropriate latitude in their dealings with courts and counsel for
Case 1:24-cv-01057-TWP-KMB Document 125 Filed 12/15/25 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
correct and honorable means." DJM Logistics, Inc. v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 39 F.4 th
408, 415 (7th Cir. 2022) (quoting Downs v. Westphal, 78 F.3d 1252, 1257 (7th Cir. 1996)).
Emotions often run high in litigation, and admonishments similar to those issued in this
case are routinely issued when allegations of incivility or improper communications are made. See
Rogers v. Allen Superior Ct., No. 16-CV-40, 2017 WL 1133600, at *3 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 27, 2017)
("Judges routinely rule on discovery disputes during the course of litigation and have discretion to
admonish or sanction counsel [and parties] for their conduct."); see also Matter of Huntington
Commons Assos., 21 F.3d 157, 159 (7th Cir. 1994) (explaining that "ordinary admonishments," as
well as "expressions of 'impatience, dissatisfaction, annoyance, and even anger,'" are not enough
to show a judge's prejudice against a party (quoting Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555–56
(1994))). This is because litigants, attorneys, and all parties—regardless of their race or gender—
are expected and required to comport with the rules of civility and professionalism.
This case concerns serious allegations for which Mr. Radcliffe may be entitled to relief.
An inordinate amount of time and resources have been spent concerning discovery disputes and
accusations. Magistrate Judge Wildeman is no longer involved in this action, so any challenges
concerning her impartiality are moot. The Court has no reservations concerning the current
Magistrate Judge's ability to fairly and impartially work on this case. Accordingly, the Motion for
Assistance is denied in all other respects, as unnecessary for the orderly progression and
disposition of this case. What is important is that all parties, including counsel, work professionally
and with civility towards resolving any pending discovery disputes, so that this case can proceed
on the merits.
II. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained in this Order Mr. Radcliffe's Motion for Court Assistance, Dkt.
[122], is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Case 1:24-cv-01057-TWP-KMB Document 125 Filed 12/15/25 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
Mr. Radcliffe's duplicate Motions to Transfer Venue, Dkts. [117] [121], are DENIED. Mr.
Radcliffe has not shown that transfer to the Northern District of Georgia is proper; however, if Mr.
Radcliffe wishes to pursue his claims in that venue, nothing in this Order prohibits him from
voluntarily dismissing this Indiana lawsuit and initiating a separate action in the Northern District
of Georgia.
SO ORDERED.
Date: 	12/15/2025
Distribution:
TERRIS RADCLIFFE
5400 Glenridge Drive #420802
Atlanta, GA 30342
Adriana Conway
Frost Brown Todd
aconway@fbtlaw.com
Eric Rupenthal
Easter & Cavoise
erupenthal@easterandcavosie.com
Kevin C. Schiferl
Frost Brown Todd LLP
kschiferl@fbtlaw.com
Blake N. Shelby
Frost Brown Todd LLP
bshelby@fbtlaw.com
Eric Ryan Shouse
Lewis And Wilkins LLP
shouse@lewisandwilkins.com
Adam Daniel Zacher
Easter & Cavoise
azacher@easterandcavosie.com
Case 1:24-cv-01057-TWP-KMB Document 125 Filed 12/15/25 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>