United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
ENTRY SCREENING COMPLAINT, DIRECTING ISSUANCE AND
SERVICE OF PROCESS, AND ALLOWING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW
J. McKINNEY, JUDGE United States District Court
Jason Schwartz, an Indiana inmate incarcerated in the Wabash
Valley Correctional Facility, commenced this 42 U.S.C. §
1983 action on July 20, 2017. He brings claims against seven
defendants concerning an incident occurring on February 14,
2017, seeking monetary damages.
plaintiff is a prisoner, his complaint is subject to the
screening requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This
statute directs that the court shall 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. 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)); 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.”) (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.
applying these legal standards, the Court construes the pro
se pleadings liberally and holds pro se pleadings to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.
Obriecht v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 491 n.2 (7th
asserts that he had a seizure on February 14, 2017, followed
by heart problems. He summoned defendants Sgt. Attley and
Nurse Ann Conner to his cell. Sgt. Attley and Officer Smitty
carried plaintiff from his cell to a nurse bay. There Nurse
Conner “noticed [he] was in seriously bad shape.”
Complaint, dkt. 1, p.6. Sgt. Attley and Officer Smitty then
carried plaintiff to the infirmary where he was examined by
Dr. Chavez and Nurse Bobbi. During the examination, and while
handcuffed and chained, plaintiff fell and landed on his
face. Plaintiff contends that Dr. Chavez, Nurse Bobbi, and
Nurse Alecia Huff kept saying that plaintiff was “on
heroin or meth or something.” Id. at 6. Nurse
Bobbi started injected plaintiff with Narcan, despite his
protestations that he was not on drugs.
passed out, and when he awakened, Nurse Bobbi again injected
him with Narcan while “every nurse and doctor”
stood around him. A drug screen officer arrived and tested
plaintiff's urine, and reported that plaintiff was not on
February 15, 2017, plaintiff was taken from the infirmary
back to his cell and placed on suicide watch by Dr. Robtoy.
Plaintiff was kept on suicide watch for a week without access
to clothes or his property. After a week, when outside drug
testing was completed and plaintiff was found to not be on
drugs, he was taken off suicide watch.
asserts that since this incident he has suffered problems
with his eyesight, breathing, and loss of use in his left arm
from muscle and nerve damage caused by the Narcan injections.
He has submitted numerous medical request forms about his
conditions but defendants are doing nothing about his
eyesight or arm.
first ground for relief contends that defendants violated a
policy for the development and delivery of health care
services and committed medical malpractice and negligence
when they did not follow protocol. The Court construes this
ground as presenting state law claims. The third ground for
relief is also policy-based, asserting that defendants were
insubordinate, were derelict in their duty, and committed
second ground for relief asserts claims under the Eighth
Amendment for cruel and unusual punishment, pain ...