Date: 11-05-2025

Case Style: Jay F. Vermillion v. Tom Francum, et al.

Case Number: 20-CV-1674

Judge: James Partick Hanlon

Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana (Marion County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Defendant's Attorney: United States Department of Justice

Description: Indianapolis, Indiana, civil rights lawyer represented the Plaintiff on civil rights violation theory.

Jay Vermillion, a prisoner at Pendleton Correctional Facility in Indiana, appeals from the summary judgment rejecting his claims that prison officials dismissed him from his job in the prison’s law library in retaliation for prior lawsuits.

This suit arises from Vermillion’s discharge from his position in Pendleton’s law library in July 2018. The prison states that it fired him because he was a person of interest in an investigation—conducted by prison investigator Brock Turney under the supervision of lead investigator Charles Houchins—into whether drugs were smuggled into the prison through library mail. According to the investigators’ report, drug-sniffing dogs located paperwork traced with drugs in the work areas of multiple prisoners, including Vermillion. He maintains that this investigation was a pretext to retaliate against him for lawsuits he brought against prison officials. See Vermillion v. Levenhagen, No. 1:15-cv-00605-RLY-TAB (S.D. Ind. 2011); Vermillion v. Corizon Health, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-1723-JMS-DLP (S.D. Ind. 2016); Vermillion v. Corizon Health, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-00961-RLY-MPB (S.D. Ind. 2017). Vermillion also contends that the investigation was ordered by Houchins’s predecessor, Tom Francum, because Vermillion previously sued Francum’s wife. After he was fired, Vermillion complained to multiple prison officials, including superintendent Dushan Zatecky and assistant superintendent Duane Alsip, but neither responded.

Vermillion sued Francum, Houchins, and Turney for instigating a pretextual investigation in retaliation for his prior lawsuits. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He also sued Zatecky and Alsip for turning a blind eye to the investigators’ misconduct.

Outcome: Summary judgment in favor of the Defendants granted.

Affirmed

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: