United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
KEVIN D. HAMLET, Plaintiff,
COMMISSIONER Indiana Department of Correction, INDIANA PAROLE BOARD, K. DAVIDSON Indiana Parole Officer, M. EASTON Indiana Parole Officer, BROWN IMPD Officer, MARION CO. CLERK OF THE COURT RM. 24, SUPERINTENDENT New Castle Correctional Facility, NEW CASTLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY CLASSIFICATION DEPT., UNKNOWN New Castle Correctional Facility staff, RANDY SHORT Director, Classification IDOC, JOHN LAYTON Marion County Sheriff's Department, C. BURKETT Indiana Ombudsman, Defendants.
ENTRY DISCUSSING AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING
William T. Lawrence, Judge
plaintiff is a prisoner currently incarcerated at Putnamville
Correctional Industrial Facility (“Putnamville”).
Because the plaintiff is a “prisoner” as defined
by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h), this Court has an obligation
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) to screen his amended
complaint [dkt. 12] before service on the defendants. For the
reasons explained below, certain claims will proceed while
other claims must be dismissed.
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), 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. In determining
whether the complaint states a claim, the Court applies the
same standard as when addressing a motion to dismiss under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Lagerstrom
v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir. 2006). To
[the] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is
plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Pro se
complaints such as that filed by the plaintiff are construed
liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers. Obriecht v. Raemisch,
517 F.3d 489, 491 n.2 (7th Cir. 2008).
Kevin D. Hamlet alleges that he was denied due process and
retaliated against which led to his wrongful incarceration.
His claims are brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He
seeks a declaratory injunction and money damages.
Hamlet alleges that in March 2016, he was told to report to
Parole District # 3 to see Parole Agent Kayla Davidson. She
allegedly threatened Mr. Hamlet into signing an
“illegal Parole Agreement” for a sentence he had
already completed. Dkt. 12 at p. 4. While on parole, Mr.
Hamlet provided Ms. Davidson with documentation that he was
proscribed opiates. On April 8, 2016, Mr. Hamlet was arrested
by Parole Supervisor John Hosler for a positive or
“dirty” drug screen. Mr. Hamlet alleges that the
specimen sample was thrown away and not tested by a
laboratory and that he was only arrested based on Ms.
Davidson's and or Mr. Hosler's orders/assessment. Mr.
Hamlet was then taken to the Marion County Jail and booked.
April 11, 2016, Mr. Hamlet was visited by Parole Officer
Michael Easton. Mr. Easton stated that if Mr. Hamlet waives
his parole revocation hearing he would be given a 10 day
sanction and released. Mr. Hamlet signed the waiver, but was
not released. Instead he was transferred to the Reception
Diagnostic Center in Plainfield, Indiana. Mr. Hamlet then
contacted a long list of individuals notifying them that he
was wrongfully incarcerated. He was never given a parole
revocation proceeding. Instead Mr. Hamlet was held in custody
and discharged to home detention on or about May 31, 2016.
Hamlet asserts that the parole agents took these actions to
retaliate against Mr. Hamlet for filing a lawsuit alleging
that he had been subjected to excessive force.
the standard set forth above to the allegations of the
amended complaint, certain claims shall proceed while other
claims must be dismissed.
claim that defendant parole officers, Drew Adams, John
Sosler, Kayla Davidson, and Michael Easton, wrongfully
incarcerated Mr. Hamlet in violation of ...