United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
ENTRY GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS,
DISCUSSING COMPLAINT, AND DIRECTING FURTHER
JANE MAGNUS-STINSON, JUDGE
plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis
[dkt 2] is granted. He shall have through October 28, 2016,
to pay an initial partial filing fee of $2.60. Failure to pay
the initial partial filing fee may result in the dismissal of
complaint is now 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. To satisfy the notice-pleading
standard of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a
complaint must provide a “short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,
” which is sufficient to provide the defendant with
“fair notice” of the claim and its basis.
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (per
curiam) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007) and quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)). The
purpose of this requirement is ''to give the
defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds
upon which it rests.'' Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)(citing Conley v.
Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)); see also Wade v.
Hopper, 993 F.2d 1246, 1249 (7th Cir. 1993)(noting that
the main purpose of Rule 8 is rooted in fair notice: a
complaint ''must be presented with intelligibility
sufficient for a court or opposing party to understand
whether a valid claim is alleged and if so what it
is.'') (quotation omitted)). The complaint
“must actually suggest that the plaintiff has a right
to relief, by providing allegations that raise a right to
relief above the speculative level.” Windy City
Metal Fabricators & Supply, Inc. v. CIT Tech. Fin.
Servs., 536 F.3d 663, 668 (7th Cir. 2008) (quoting
Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1084 (7th Cir.
on this screening, the complaint must be dismissed. Ferrell
brings his claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and
alleges that he has not received appropriate treatment for
his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth
Amendment. But he does not allege who is directly responsible
for the alleged denials of care. Without an allegation of the
person or persons directly responsible for the denials, the
complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. Munson v. Gaetz, 673 F.3d 630, 637 (7th
Cir. 2012) (section 1983 liability requires a defendant's
personal involvement in the alleged constitutional
violation); Burks v. Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592, 593-94
(7th Cir. 2009) (“Section 1983 does not establish a
system of vicarious responsibility. Liability depends on each
defendant's knowledge and actions, not on the knowledge
or actions of persons they supervise. . . .
Monell's rule [is that] that public employees
are responsible for their own misdeeds but not for anyone
else's.”)(citing Monell v. New York City
Dep't of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978)).
Ferrell names Corizon in the caption but does not reference
actions on the part of Corizon in the body of the complaint.
He has therefore failed to state a claim against Corizon.
See Potter v. Clark, 497 F.2d 1206, 1207 (7th Cir.
1974) (“Where a complaint alleges no specific act or
conduct on the part of the defendant and the complaint is
silent as to the defendant except for his name appearing in
the caption, the complaint is properly dismissed.”). In
addition, Corizon, a private corporation, is not vicariously
liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the alleged misdeeds
of its employees, but if the injury alleged is the result of
a policy or practice. Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance
Serv., 577 F.3d 816 (7th Cir. 2009). No ingredient of
that nature is present in the compendious second amended
dismissal of the complaint will not in yet lead to the
dismissal of the action. Instead, Ferrell shall have through
October 28, 2016, in which to file an amended complaint.
filing an amended complaint, Ferrell shall conform to the
following guidelines: (a) the amended complaint shall comply
with the requirement of Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure that pleadings contain “a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief. . . ., ” which is sufficient to
provide the defendant with “fair notice” of the
claim and its basis. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.
89, 93 (2007) (per curiam) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) and quoting
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)); (b) the amended complaint must include
a demand for the relief sought; (c) the amended complaint
must identify what legal injury they claim to have suffered
and what persons are responsible for each such legal injury;
and (d) the amended complaint must include the case number
referenced in the caption of this Entry. The plaintiff is
further notified that “[u]nrelated claims against
different defendants belong in different suits.”
George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).
organizing his complaint, Ferrell may benefit from utilizing
the Court's complaint form. The clerk is directed to
include a copy of the prisoner civil rights complaint form
along with the plaintiff's copy of this Entry.
amended complaint is filed as directed above, it will be
screened. If no amended complaint is filed, this action will