United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING FILING OF
EVANS BARKER, JUDGE
plaintiff is a prisoner currently incarcerated at the
Westville Correctional Facility. Because the plaintiff 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).
brings this case for violations of his civil rights under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Norman asserts that when he was an inmate
at the Monroe County Jail, he was held for 23 hours a day in
a cell and suffering from schizophrenia, delusions, and
psychosis. He claims that he was not provided with adequate
medical care for these conditions and that he wrote to Doctor
Weller, Jail Commander Sam Crowe, and Sheriff Brad Swain
multiple times asking for help to no avail.
Claims that will Proceed
on the screening set forth above, some claims will be
dismissed while others will proceed.
Norman names the Monroe County Jail, the Monroe County Jail
Medical Department, and the Monroe County Sheriff's
Department as defendants. Any claim against the Monroe County
Jail and Monroe County Jail Medical Department must be
dismissed because these entities are not
“persons” subject to suit under § 1983. In
addition, the claims against the Monroe County Sheriff's
Department must be dismissed because Norman
does not assert that the alleged violations of his rights
were the result of a policy or practice of the Sheriff's
Department. See Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance
Serv., 577 F.3d 816 (7th Cir. 2009) (a municipal entity
is not liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the alleged
misdeeds of their employees unless the injury alleged is the
result of a policy or practice). The clerk shall
terminate the Monroe County Jail, the Monroe County
Jail Medical Department, and the Monroe County Sheriff's
Department as defendants.
interest of judicial efficiency, however, Doctor Weller, Jail
Commander Sam Crowe, and Sheriff Brad Swain shall be
named as defendants because Norman asserts
actions on their part in the body of his complaint. The
claims that these defendants ignored his requests for medical
help for his mental health needs and maintained him in
solitary confinement despite his mental health needs
shall proceed as claims that these
defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious
medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
summary of remaining claims includes all of the viable claims
identified by the Court. All other claims have been
dismissed. If the plaintiff believes that additional claims
were alleged in the complaint, but not identified by the
Court he shall have through December 1,
2017, in which to identify those claims.
plaintiff's request that the defendants be required to
provide his medical records, dkt. , is
granted to the extent that once the
defendants appear, they shall provide these materials in the
course of discovery.
Duty to ...