United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
ENTRY DISCUSSING COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING FURTHER
J. McKINNEY, JUDGE
Terry Parker, an inmate at the Federal Correctional
Institution in Terre Haute, Indiana (“FCI Terre
Haute”), brings this action alleging that he has
received inadequate medical care for his heart condition and
Screening of the Complaint
Parker is a “prisoner” as defined by 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(h), the complaint is subject to the screening
requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Pursuant to this
statute, “[a] complaint is subject to dismissal for
failure to state a claim if the allegations, taken as true,
show that plaintiff is not entitled to relief.”
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007). To survive
a motion to dismiss, the complaint “must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim
to 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)
(quotations omitted). Pro se complaints are construed
liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Obriecht v.
Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 491 n.2 (7th Cir. 2008).
alleges that he received inadequate medical care for his
heart condition while he was housed at the Marion Federal
Prison Camp in Marion, Illinois (“Marion”), and
since he has been transferred to the FCI Terre Haute. He
names as defendants the Bureau of Prisons Health Services
Division, et al. He states this case is brought under the
theory recognized in Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal
Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and the Federal
Tort Claims Act.
on the screening standard set forth above, Parker's
claims shall proceed as follows: Parker's claim that he
has received inadequate medical care for his heart condition
and his pain while he has been confined at the FCI Terre
Haute shall proceed. The only individual
Parker identifies who was responsible for this treatment is
Dr. Trueblood. Accordingly, this claim shall proceed pursuant
to Bivens against Dr. Trueblood as a claim of
deliberate indifference to plaintiff's serious medical
needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
claim against prison officials or medical personnel at Marion
is severed from the claims in this case.
This is because joinder of defendants into one action is
proper only “if there is asserted against them jointly,
severally, or in the alternative, any right to relief in
respect of or arising out of the same transaction,
occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and if
any question of law or fact common to all defendants will
arise in the action.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a). Claims based
on care received at Marion would involve different defendants
and different care than the care Parker received at the FCI
in Terre Haute. Accordingly, any claim based on care received
at Marion is dismissed without prejudice. If
Parker wishes to pursue those claims, he must pursue them in
a separate lawsuit in the appropriate court.
claim pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act must be
dismissed. The only proper defendant in an
action pursuant to the FTCA is the United States itself,
see Hughes v. United States, 701 F.2d 56, 58 (7th
Cir. 1982), and the United States is not included as a
defendant in this case. See Myles v. United States,
416 F.3d 551, 552 (7th Cir. 2005) (noting that the
composition and content of the amended complaint are entirely
the responsibility of the plaintiff, for "even pro se
litigants are masters of their own complaints and may choose
who to sue-or not to sue").
request for release from confinement must be
dismissed. A writ of habeas corpus is the
exclusive remedy to challenge the fact or duration of
confinement. See Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637,
646 (2004) (“[D]amages are not an available habeas
remedy.”); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539,
554 (1974) (“[H]abeas corpus is not an appropriate or
available remedy for damages claims.”).
summary, Parker's claim for deliberate indifference to
his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth
Amendment shall proceed against Dr.
Trueblood. Dr. Trueblood shall be substituted for
Bureau of Prisons Health Services Division as the
defendant. All other claims are
dismissed. If Parker believes he has
asserted a claim that has not been addressed in this Entry,
he shall have through September 19, 2017, to
notify the Court.
clerk is directed to issue a single summons
to Dr. Trueblood, the United States attorney for this
district and the Attorney General of the United States at
Washington, D.C., pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
4(i)(1). The Marshal for this District or his Deputy shall
serve the summons, together with a copy of the complaint and
a copy of this Entry, on the defendant at the expense of the