United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division
ENTRY DISCUSSING AMENDED COMPLAINT, DISMISSING INSUFFICIENT CLAIMS, AND DIRECTING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge United States District Court Southern District of Indiana
Plaintiff John Dupree (“Mr. Dupree”), an inmate at the United States Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana, alleges that his constitutional rights are being violated because the defendants have refused to properly treat his serious medical needs. He brings his claims under the theory set forth in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Bivens “authorizes the filing of constitutional tort suits against federal officers in much the same way that 42 U.S.C. §1983 authorizes such suits against state officers. . . .” King v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 415 F.3d 634, 636 (7th Cir. 2005). Mr. Dupree seeks compensatory and punitive damages and preliminary injunctive relief.
In his amended complaint, Mr. Dupree has named nine defendants: 1) Director Health Services Administrator Andrew Rupska; 2) Nurse Daniels; 3) Dr. Standard; 4) Nurse Dobbins; 5) Paramedic Drummey; 6) Physician’s Assistant Cox; 7) Lab Technician Sanduski; 8) X-Ray Technician Abriani; and 9) Physician’s Assistant Mata.
The amended complaint is subject to the screening requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). This statute directs that the Court dismiss a complaint or any claim within a complaint which “(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id.
A. Dismissed Claims
Any claim against defendant Physician’s Assistant Cox is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because Cox is not mentioned at all in the complaint.
Any claims against defendants Nurse Dobbins and X-Ray Technician Abriani are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because Mr. Dupree alleges no misconduct or omissions on their part sufficient to support a claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.
No partial final judgment shall issue as to the claims dismissed in this Entry.
B. Claims That Will Proceed
Mr. Dupree’s Eighth Amendment claims of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need shall proceed against six defendants: 1) Director Health Services Administrator Andrew Rupska; 2) Nurse Daniels; 3) Dr. Standard; 4) Paramedic Drummey; 5) Lab Technician Sanduski; and 6) Physician’s Assistant Mata. The clerk shall update the docket accordingly.
III. Service of Process
The clerk is designated, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2), to issue process to the six defendants: 1) Director Health Services Administrator Andrew Rupska; 2) Nurse Daniels; 3) Dr. Standard; 4) Paramedic Drummey; 5) Lab Technician Sanduski; and 6) Physician’s Assistant Mata. Process shall consist of a summons. Because the plaintiff is proceeding under the theory recognized in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), personal service is required. Robinson v. Turner, 15 F.3d 82 (7th Cir. 1994). The Marshal for this District or his Deputy shall serve the summons, together with a copy of the amended complaint, filed on ...