United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
TERRY T. ADAMS, SR., Plaintiff,
CORIZON HEALTHCARE, WEXFORD HEALTH, SAMUEL BRYD Dr., MARTIN Dr., REED R.N., LUNDY Lt., IDOC Custody Staff, Defendants.
ENTRY DENYING IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS, SCREENING AND
DISMISSING CERTAIN DEFENDANTS AND CLAIMS, AND DIRECTING
PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE
William T. Lawrence, Judge
Terry T. Adams, Sr., initiated this action on May 15, 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.
, is denied as presented. He shall have until June 19,
2017, in which renew his motion to proceed in forma
pauperis by attaching a copy of the transactions
associated with his institution trust account for the
six-month period preceding the filing of this action on May
15, 2017. 42 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). Otherwise, plaintiff
must pay the $400.00 filing fee.
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.
contends he injured his bicep on August 21, 2015, and that he
has seen but not been adequately treated by Nurse Reed, Dr.
Martin, and Dr. Samuel Byrd. He contends that despite a
severe injury and a surgery recommendation, he has not been
scheduled for surgery, his pain has not been adequately
treated, and that these health providers have been
deliberately indifferent to his “serious medical
situation.” He further contends that Lt. Lundy declined
to assist him with paperwork to obtain medical care, that Lt.
Lundy could have demanded health care for him, and that Lt.
Lundy “had no desire to fill our additional forms for
complaint, liberally construed, states an Eighth Amendment
claim as to Nurse Reed, Dr. Martin, Dr. Samuel Byrd, and Lt.
Lundy, and shall proceed as directed below. There are no
specific allegations made against Corizon Healthcare, Wexford
Health, or I.D.O.C. Custody Staff. Section 1983 liability
cannot be premised on vicarious liability. Rodriguez v.
Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816 (7th Cir. 2009).
The claims against Corizon Healthcare, Wexford Health, and
I.D.O.C. Custody Staff are dismissed for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. §
First Amendment claim is dismissed for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. Nothing in
plaintiff's complaint invokes any First Amendment issue,
and the specific allegations he makes concern deliberate
indifference to his medical needs, which are covered by
plaintiff's Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference
claim. Constitutional claims are to be addressed under the
most applicable provision. See Conyers v. Abitz, 416
F.3d 580, 586 (7th Cir. 2005).
plaintiff believes that additional claims or defendants were
alleged in the complaint, but not identified by the Court, he
shall have through June 19, 2017, in which to identify those
Summary and ...