Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Epperly v. Howard County Criminal Justice Center

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division

November 9, 2016

WILLIAM EPPERLY, Plaintiff,
v.
HOWARD COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE CENTER, STEVE ROGERS, JUSTIN CHRISTMAS, JEFFREY BRACKETT, ANDREA STONESTREET, Defendants.

          ENTRY ASSESSING INITIAL PARTIAL FILING FEE, DISMISSING COMPLAINT, AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE

          TANYA WALTON PRATT, JUDGE

         I. In Forma Pauperis

         The plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [dkt. 2] is granted. The plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of Forty-One Dollars and Ten Cents ($41.10). He shall have through December 9, 2016, in which to pay this sum to the clerk of the district court.

         II. Screening

         Plaintiff William Epperly is a 59 year old inmate at the Howard County Criminal Justice Center in Kokomo, Indiana. He brings this civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the conditions of his confinement violate his Eighth Amendment rights. He names the following defendants: 1) the Howard County Criminal Justice Center (‘the Jail”); 2) Steve Rogers; 3) Justin Christmas; 4) Jeffrey Brackett; and 5) Andrea Stonestreet.

         Because Mr. Epperly is a “prisoner” as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h), this Court has an obligation under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A to screen his complaint and must dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. In determining 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 Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir. 2006). To survive dismissal under federal pleadings standards,

a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. 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) (internal quotation and citation omitted).

         1. Howard County Criminal Justice Center

         Any claim against the Jail is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because the Jail is a building, not a person suable under section 1983.

         2. Andrea Stonestreet

         There are no allegations of wrongdoing asserted against Ms. Stonestreet. Her name only appears in the caption and list of defendants, but no facts support any plausible claim for relief. Accordingly, any claim against Andrea Stonestreet is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

         3. Sheriff Steve Rogers

         The Court presumes that Sheriff Rogers is named as a defendant for the overcrowding claim. Mr. Epperly alleges that because the Jail is overcrowded the two man cells are now being used to house three men. He alleges there is little room to move in the cell and he is confined there for 18 to 20 hours per day. He alleges he has to eat his ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.