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.

Hamlet v. Commissioner Indiana Department of Correction

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division

April 19, 2017

KEVIN D. HAMLET, Plaintiff,
v.
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 FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

          Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge

         The 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.

         I.

         Pursuant 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 survive dismissal,

[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).

         II.

         Plaintiff 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.

         Mr. 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.

         On 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.

         Mr. 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.

         III.

         Applying the standard set forth above to the allegations of the amended complaint, certain claims shall proceed while other claims must be dismissed.

         The claim that defendant parole officers, Drew Adams, John Sosler, Kayla Davidson, and Michael Easton, wrongfully incarcerated Mr. Hamlet in violation of ...


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.