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.

Sloan v. Plainfield Correctional Facility

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

March 27, 2017

JOHNNY SLOAN, Plaintiff,
v.
PLAINFIELD CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, MURAT POLAR M.D., CORIZON HEALTH, Defendants.

          ENTRY DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

          Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge

         I. Background

         Plaintiff Johnny Sloan, an inmate currently confined at the New Castle Correctional Facility, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He names the following defendants: 1) Plainfield Correctional Facility; 2) Dr. Murat Polar; and 3) Corizon Health (“Corizon”). Each defendant is sued in his official and individual capacities. Mr. Sloan seeks compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief.

         Mr. Sloan has paid the initial partial filing fee. The complaint is now subject to the screening requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). This statute directs that the court 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.

         II. Screening

         The incidents alleged in the complaint occurred at the Plainfield Correctional Facility (“Plainfield”). Mr. Sloan alleges that he arrived at Plainfield on January 17, 2015. He was in a wheelchair “due to his disabilities and large size.” Complaint, Dkt. 1, p. 1. He was housed in the North Dorm which has a 4X4 handicap shower stall. He was unable to maneuver, however, in the limited space and it lacked handicap rails. He had to borrow another inmate's cane to get in and out of the shower. The shower had what he alleges to be an unstable, slick plastic chair.

         On or about March 23, 2015, Mr. Sloan slipped and fell while attempting to get out of the shower, injuring his shoulder and knee. He saw medical staff that day and was told to apply ice. He received months of medical treatment for his shoulder, but on June 12, 2015, an MRI allegedly showed a “tear on the rotor cuff.” Dkt. 1, p. 2. He alleges, however, that medical staff told him there was no tear. He received no further treatment and remains unable to push himself in his wheelchair due to pain and reduced mobility.

         On March 23, 2015, after he fell, Mr. Sloan notified prison staff that the North Dorm shower was not handicap accessible in that there were no handicap rails and no benches upon which to sit. In mid-April 2015, Mr. Sloan was moved to East Dorm which had a shower equipped with what he alleges was an unstable shower seat made from PVC piping and topped with a toilet seat. In June 2015, Mr. Sloan was moved to J Dorm and the shower there had a step into it, which made it unusable for him without assistance from other inmates. He alleges that having non-handicap accessible showers was negligent and deliberately indifferent to his health and safety.

         In addition, Mr. Sloan alleges that on “many occasions” he was denied time in the recreation area because there was “no wheelchair ramp around the other side of there [sic] area and hoped and requested prison staff would unlock it to allow him entry to the rec area.” Dkt. 1, p. 2. He alleges this constituted the denial of basic human needs. Mr. Sloan's claims are each discussed below.

         As noted, Mr. Sloan's claims are brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Any claim against Plainfield is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because it is a building, not a suable entity under section 1983.

         Any claim for injunctive relief is denied as moot because Mr. Sloan is no longer confined at Plainfield. Jaros v. Illinois Dept. of Corrections, 684 F.3d 667, 670 n. 3. (7th Cir. 2012).

         Deprivation of Exercise Claim - Constitutional Claim

         The Court acknowledges that exercise is “a necessary requirement for physical and mental well-being, ” however, “short-term denials of exercise may be inevitable in the prison context and are not so detrimental as to constitute a constitutional deprivation.” Delaney v. DeTella, 256 F.3d 679, 683-84 (7th Cir. 2001) (collecting cases). The complaint is not specific enough to state a viable Eighth Amendment claim with regard to the alleged denial of time in the recreation area. It is not alleged that Mr. Sloan was deprived of all exercise, inside and outdoors, nor is it clear what “many occasions” means, or whether the denial of exercise was sporadic depending on where prison staff were stationed at various times. “Allowing inmates only two showers and four hours of outside recreation each week does not violate the Eighth Amendment.” Vasquez v. Braemer, 586 Fed.Appx. 224, 228 (7th Cir. 2014) (collecting cases that approved of three hours weekly of outdoor recreation when indoor exercise was allowed). In addition, no defendant was alleged to have denied Mr. Sloan exercise. “Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to . . . § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official's own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009). For these reasons, the Eighth Amendment denial of exercise claim is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

         Lack of Accessible Showers - ...


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.