United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY SCREENING COMPLAINT, DISMISSING DEFICIENT AND
IMPROPERLY JOINED CLAIMS, AND DIRECTING THE FILING OF AN
WILLIAM T. LAWRENCE, JUDGE
initial partial filing has been paid. The complaint filed
September 15, 2017, is now subject to screening pursuant to
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).
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
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
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
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 ...