United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
CHRISTOPHER J. DIRIG, SR., Plaintiff,
THE GEO GROUP, INC., JOHN/JANE DOE(S), Defendants.
ENTRY DISCUSSING AMENDED COMPLAINT, DISMISSING
INSUFFICIENT CLAIMS, DISCUSSING PENDING MOTIONS, AND
DIRECTING ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF PROCESS
J. McKINNEY, JUDGE
Entry of November 22, 2016, the Court gave plaintiff
Christopher Dirig a deadline to file an amended complaint
because his first pleading did not constitute a complaint. He
has filed his amended complaint.
Screening Amended Complaint
amended complaint is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A. The Court 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. Id.
Dirig is an inmate at the New Castle Correctional Facility
(“NCCF”). In his amended complaint, he names 31
defendants. The defendants are sued in their individual and
official capacities. Mr. Dirig seeks compensatory damages and
injunctive relief in the form of mental health treatment.
Dirig alleges that on or about August 18, 2016, Officer K.
Stewart rubbed her buttocks on him against his back while he
was in the chow hall. When he asked her to please stop she
allegedly said “No, I can do what I want.” She
did this in a sexual manner four times. On another occasion,
October 14, 2016, Officer K. Stewart asked Mr. Dirig to go
into J Dorm to have sex with her. He seeks $5 million dollars
from Officer Stewart for sexual misconduct and humiliation.
This Eighth Amendment claim shall proceed.
Dirig further alleges that he reported the incidents several
times in August 2016 to Casework Manager Easley and gave her
PREA Incident Reports, but she told him later she did not
know what happened to the reports. No PREA investigation was
done. He seeks $10 million dollars from Case Manager Easley
for not reporting the sexual misconduct. This claim,
construed as an Eighth Amendment claim of failing to take
reasonable steps to protect Mr. Dirig's safety,
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994), shall
Dirig alleges he was placed and remains in segregation for
reporting Officer Stewart's misconduct. He alleges he was
placed in segregation “for no conduct.” He seeks
$20 million in damages from GEO Group, Inc. for this claim.
GEO Group, Inc., is “a private company that
manage[s]” correctional facilities “for the State
of Indiana.” Chaib v. Geo Group, Inc., 819
F.3d 337, 339 (7th Cir. 2016). GEO Group, Inc. is not a
person capable of being sued for placing Mr. Dirig in
segregation. Without personal liability, there can be no
recovery under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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.”) (internal citation omitted).
In addition, Mr. Dirig does not allege that any GEO Group,
Inc. custom or policy caused a constitutional violation.
Therefore, the claim of being placed in segregation for no
misconduct, which could be construed as a claim of
retaliation or due process violation, as asserted against GEO
Group, Inc., is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.
with respect to the numerous other defendants, Mr. Dirig does
not allege any facts of wrongdoing against those individuals.
He alleges that “all defendants named have knowledge of
incident(s) [of] sexual misconduct or being placed in
segregation without conduct.” Simply having knowledge
of circumstances that gave rise to his claims is not
sufficient to bring those defendants, without more, into the
zone of liability. Therefore, any claims against those
defendants are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.
partial final judgment shall issue at this time regarding the
claims dismissed in this Entry.
plaintiff's motion entering evidence [dkt. 12] is denied
to the extent the plaintiff seeks to enter evidence at this
early stage of the litigation.
plaintiff's motion regarding access to the courts
requesting the Court to order the GEO Group not to prevent
him from mailing legal mail [dkt. 13] is denied because the
plaintiff has been ...