United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
TROY M. TILLISON, Plaintiff,
SHELBY COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE CENTER, Defendant.
ENTRY DISCUSSING AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING
SERVICE OF PROCESS
WILLIAM T. LAWRENCE, JUDGE.
Entry of November 9, 2016, the Court screened the
plaintiff's complaint and dismissed it for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted because the
only named defendant was the Shelby County Jail, which is not
a suable entity. The plaintiff was given an opportunity to
file an amended complaint, which he has done.
Court construes the amended complaint as having been filed
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting a claim of
deliberate indifference to the plaintiff's serious
medical needs. He also alleges that the Indiana
Administrative Code at 210 IAC 3-1-11 is being violated. The
plaintiff alleges that from June 7, 2015, through August 28,
2015, while he was incarcerated at the Shelby County Jail
(“the Jail”), he was denied all six of his
prescribed medications and was not allowed to see a
physician. He alleges that ever since he was stripped of his
medications, he has not been mentally stable and has had
headaches. The defendant in the amended complaint is the
Shelby County Sheriff's Department, in its individual and
official capacities. The plaintiff seeks compensatory
Screening Amended Complaint
amended complaint is now subject to screening pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b). This statute directs that the Court
dismiss a complaint or any claim within a complaint that
“(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 complaint is subject to
dismissal for failure to state a claim if the allegations,
taken as true, show the plaintiff is not entitled to
relief.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215
1983 creates a federal cause of action for “the
deprivation, under color of [state] law, of a citizen's
rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution
and laws of the United States.” Livadas v.
Bradshaw, 512 U.S. 107, 132 (1994) (internal quotation
omitted). Thus, no action lies under § 1983 unless a
plaintiff has asserted the violation of a federal
right. See Middlesex County Sewage Auth. v. Nat'l Sea
Clammers Ass'n, 453 U.S. 1, 19 (1981);
Waubanascum v. Shawano County, 416 F.3d 658, 670
(7th Cir. 2005) (neither negligence nor a violation of state
law provide a basis for liability under § 1983);
J.H. ex rel. Higgin v. Johnson, 346 F.3d 788, 793
(7th Cir. 2003) (“State law violations do not form the
basis for imposing § 1983 liability.”); Juriss
v. McGowan, 957 F.2d 345, 349 n.1 (7th Cir. 1992)
(without a predicate constitutional violation one cannot make
out a prima facie case under § 1983). Any
alleged violation of the Indiana Administrative Code does not
support a claim under section 1983. In addition, any alleged
violation of the Indiana Jail Standards set forth in Title
210 of the Indiana Administrative Code does not provide a
private cause of action. See Kress v. CCA of Tennessee,
LLC, 1:08-cv-431-DFH-TAB, 2008 WL 4627828 (S.D. Ind.
Oct. 17, 2008). Any claim based on 210 IAC 3-1-11 is
therefore dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.
noted above, the named defendant is the Shelby County
Sheriffs Department. The plaintiff alleges that the
“Sheriff is in charge of the Jail.” The Court
broadly construes the amended complaint as alleging that the
Sheriff and/or a policy of the Jail interfered with the
plaintiffs prescribed treatment and the plaintiff was thereby
deliberately denied or delayed necessary medical treatment in
violation of the Eighth Amendment. This claim shall proceed.
Because naming both the Shelby County Sheriff in his official
capacity and the Shelby County Sheriffs Department is
redundant, the sole defendant for the present is the Shelby
County Sheriff in his individual and official capacities.
See Budd v. Motley, 711 F.3d 840, 844 (7th Cir.
2012) (an official capacity “suit against a government
office and the officeholder are identical, the two
defendants-the Sheriff and his office-are redundant on this
claim.”) (internal citations omitted).
Service of Process
clerk is designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)
to issue process to the Shelby County Sheriff in the manner
specified by Rule 4(d). Process shall consist of the amended
complaint filed on December 5, 2016 (docket 10), applicable
forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of
Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), and this Entry.
plaintiff shall report any change of address within seven (7)
clerk shall update the docket to reflect the defendant as the
Shelby County Sheriff in his ...