United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY GRANTING IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS, SCREENING
AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT, AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW
WALTON PRATT, JUDGE
Pedro James Rodriguez initiated this action on April 28,
2017, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court makes the
In Forma Pauperis Status
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, [dkt.
2], is granted. Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial
filing fee of seven dollars and eight cents ($7.08), which
must be paid to the clerk no later than June 12, 2017.
Screening of the Complaint
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the Court must dismiss a
complaint or any claim within a complaint that “(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)). The
purpose of this requirement is “to give the defendant
fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which
it rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355
U.S. 41, 47 (1957)); 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.”) (internal 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)).
complaints 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). Liberal construction means that if the Court can
reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which
the party could prevail, it should do so.
initial matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff's
complaint is unsigned. Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure provides that “[e]very pleading, written
motion, and other paper must be signed . . . by a party
personally if the party is unrepresented.” See also
Lewis v. Lenc- Smith Mfg. Co., 784 F.2d 829, 831 (7th
Cir. 1986). Should plaintiff wish to proceed with this
action, in light of the remainder of this Entry, he shall
ensure that any amended complaint he elects to file is
Health and Doctor Bruce Ipple are the named defendants.
Plaintiff seeks monetary damages for pain and suffering and
to have his finger “properly [looked] at and
[fixed].” Plaintiff alleges that the defendants
violated his medical rights because they knew he broke his
finger on October 28, 2015, yet he still had pain and
stiffness in his finger as recently as July 21, 2016. Dr.
Ipple's role in treating plaintiff's injury is very
briefly described, but no specific allegations are made
against Corizon. Section 1983 liability cannot be premised on
vicarious liability. Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance
Serv., 577 F.3d 816 (7th Cir. 2009). The claim against
Corizon is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (b)(1).
sole allegation against Dr. Ipple is that Dr. Ipple saw him
on June 28, 2016, and “sent [an] email requesting
suggestion[s] about my finger.” There are no
allegations that Dr. Ipple refused to treat plaintiff's
pain or was otherwise deliberately indifferent to
plaintiff's medical needs. The claim against Dr. Ipple is
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
there are other individuals named in the complaint's
statement of claim section, they are not identified as
defendants and no specific allegations are made against them.
The complaint alleges that plaintiff's hand was x-rayed
and placed in a cast and he subsequently received
occupational therapy for displacement. The Court has employed
a liberal interpretation of the pro se complaint, but is
unable to identify a viable section 1983 claim against any of
the persons plaintiff mentions. The treatment plaintiff
pleads he received was not “so blatantly inappropriate
as to evidence intentional mistreatment likely to seriously
aggravate” his condition. Snipes v. DeTella,