United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
STEPHEN G. BOWMAN, Plaintiff,
STATE OF INDIANA, ROBERT E. CORTES, Jr. Com. Doc., PENDELTON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, ZATECKY Superintendent, DUANE ALSIP Assistant Superintendent, ANDREW COLE Assistant Superintendent, HOLLOWELL, HINTON Sgt., MARKS Sgt., PITT, LAURA R BEDKIN, PAULA DICKSON, LUNDFORD Sgt., CONLEY Lt., BOB DOURTY, Defendants.
ENTRY SCREENING COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING FURTHER
EVANS BARKER, JUDGE.
Stephen Bowman, a prisoner currently incarcerated at the
Pendleton Correctional Facility, brings this case pursuant 42
U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that his civil rights have been
violated. Because Bowman 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
complaint before service on the defendants. 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).
alleges that he notified a number of staff members at the
Pendleton Correctional Facility, including Paula Dickinson,
Mr. Hollowell, Mr. Pitt, Sgt. Hinton, and Sgt. Marks, that he
was afraid another inmate would assault him, that these staff
members did not act to protect him, and that he was attacked.
He also alleges that Assistant Superintendent Cole, Assistant
Superintendent Duane Alsip, and Superintendent Zatecky also
did nothing to prevent the assault. Finally, he asserts that
grievances he filed after the assault were mishandled.
Discussion of Claims
the screening standard to the factual allegations in the
complaint, certain claims are dismissed while other claims
Claims that are dismissed
any claim against the State of Indiana must be
dismissed. Eleventh Amendment immunity bars
suits against states and their agencies regardless of the
relief sought, whether damages or injunctive relief.
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44,
58 (1996); Pennhurst State School and Hospital v.
Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 102 (1984).
any claim against Robert Cortes, the Superintendent of the
Indiana Department of Correction, must be
dismissed because Bowman does not allege
that Cortes was personally involved in any of the acts at
issue in the complaint. See Minix v. Canarecci, 597
F.3d 824, 833 (7th Cir. 2010) (“[I]ndividual liability
under § 1983 requires ‘personal involvement in the
alleged constitutional deprivation.'”).
claim against the Pendleton Correctional Facility is
dismissed because the Facility is not a
“person” subject to suit under § 1983.
any claim against Assistant Superintendents Alsip and Cole
and Superintendent Zatecky is dismissed.
Bowman alleges that these defendants did not help him, but he
does not allege that any of these defendants were aware of
any risk of harm to him. Guzman v. Sheahan, 495 F.3d
852, 857 (7th Cir. 2007) (to be liable for failure to protect
an inmate from assault, an official must be “aware of a
substantial risk of ...