United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
ENTRY DISCUSSING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND
DIRECTING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
William T. Lawrence, Judge.
Kenneth Wolfe, an inmate at the Wabash Valley Correctional
Facility, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 alleging that since he has been confined at that
facility, he has received constitutionally inadequate medical
care in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. Wolfe has
filed a notice of misfiling and request to replace complaint
with a proper draft. That motion, Dkt. No. 56, is treated as
a motion to file a Second Amended Complaint and, as so
treated, is granted. The clerk shall
re-docket the proposed Amended Complaint, (Dkt. No.
56 pgs. 7-24) as the Second Amended Complaint.
Screening of the Second Amended Complaint
Wolfe is a “prisoner” as defined by 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(h), the Second Amended 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, 127 S.Ct. 910, 921
(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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quotations omitted).
In other words, 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)). Pro se complaints such as that filed
by Wolfe, are construed liberally and held to a less
stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.
Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94; Obriecht v.
Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 491 n.2 (7th Cir. 2008).
The Second Amended Complaint
alleges in the Second Amended Complaint that he suffers from
gastrointestinal issues, including Gastroesophageal Reflux
Disease, Irritable Bowel Syndrome, and a hiatal hernia. He
further alleges that he suffers from spinal issues including
sciatica. Finally, he states that he suffers from carpal
tunnel syndrome. He alleges that he has been denied
constitutionally adequate medical care for each of these
conditions and he sues a number of defendants for their
alleged roles in his medical care.
on the screening discussed above, any claim against the
Indiana Department of Correction must be
dismissed because this entity is not subject
to suit under § 1983. See Omosegbon v. Wells,
335 F.3d 668, 673 (7th Cir. 2003) (the state is not a
“person” that can be sued under 42 U.S.C. §
following claims will proceed as claims for
deliberate indifference to Wolfe's serious medical
The claim that Doctors Martin and Byrd have denied him
diagnostic testing and appropriate treatment and medication
for his gastrointestinal issues;
The claim that Dr. Martin denied him needed pain medication,
denied him treatment for his carpal tunnel syndrome,
including surgery, and denied him a necessary wheelchair;
The claim that Corizon, L.A. Van Natta, Esther Hinton, Monica
Gibson, Doctors Martin and Byrd, Nurse Hobson, and Grievance
Specialist Teresa Littlejohn have all knowingly relied on
false medical records to deny him medical care for his
painful spinal condition;
The claim that Dr. Martin, Dr. Byrd, and Nurse Hobson ignore
his chronic care issues, including COPD, hiatial hernia,
cervical spondylosis, carpal tunnel syndrome, osteoarthritis,
and a torn rotator cuff, by ceasing to identify them as
The claim that Dr. Martin, Nurse Hobson, Teresa Littlejohn,
Esther Hinton, Monica Gibson, and L.A. VanNatta provided him
medication to which he is allergic;
The claim that Dr. Ronald Young told him incorrectly that he
suffers from mild arthritis in his neck and recorded this