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.

McCormick v. Indiana Department of Corrections

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

January 8, 2017

WILLIAM ROBERT MCCORMICK, Plaintiff,
v.
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, CORIZON MEDICAL, Defendants.

          ENTRY SCREENING COMPLAINT, DISMISSING DEFICIENT AND IMPROPERLY JOINED CLAIMS, AND DIRECTING THE FILING OF AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

          HON. WILLIAM T. LAWRENCE, JUDGE

         The initial partial filing has been paid. The complaint filed September 15, 2017, is now subject to screening pursuant to statute.

         I. Screening Standard

         Because plaintiff is a prisoner, the complaint is subject to the screening requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This statute directs that the Court shall 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)); 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. 2008)). The Court construes pro se pleadings liberally, and holds pro se pleadings to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Obriecht v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 491 n.2 (7th Cir. 2008).

         II. Plaintiff's Complaint

         Plaintiff William McCormick filed a fourteen-page complaint that names eleven defendants at two correctional facilities for possibly eleven separate grounds for relief brought as violations of the First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court discerns the following claims in plaintiff's complaint:

1. An Eighth Amendment policy or practice claim against the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Correction for not allowing plaintiff to wear his medically necessary leg braces in prison and seizing them from him upon his reception in the prison system on January 8, 2016.
2. An Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim when on January 8, 2016, an unidentified corrections officer took plaintiff's leg braces from him at his intake examination and refused to allow him to wear them.
3. An Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim when an unidentified nurse at the Plainfield Correctional Facility on July 4, 2016, refused to follow a doctor's instruction that plaintiff should be given his leg braces.
4. An Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim against unspecified defendants alleging that his thirty-six square foot living space, shared with another inmate at the Plainfield Correctional Facility, was too small, was cold and damp, infested with bugs, had no air circulation, and significant leaks in the roof during rainfall.
5. An Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim against unspecified defendants because of substantial delays in the ability to see a medical, dental, or psychiatric services provider.
6. An Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim against unspecified defendants for inadequate exercise opportunities.
7. An Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim against unspecified defendants for mixing inmates with different security levels thus risking the safety of inmates.
8. A Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against unspecified defendants for deficiencies in the ...

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.