United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING FURTHER
EVANS BARKER, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
plaintiff is a prisoner currently incarcerated at Plainfield
Correctional Facility (“Plainfield”). 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).
plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 against Plainfield Correctional Facility alleging that
his constitutional rights were violated while he was
incarcerated at Plainfield. He states that on April 7, 2017,
a correctional officer impermissibly allowed another inmate
into his cell and that inmate stabbed him, which led to a
physical altercation that spilled out of the cell. The
plaintiff received disciplinary charges for his involvement
in the altercation, but he was denied medical treatment for
his stab wound both that day and for a significant period
after. He requests money damages for his pain and suffering
for his untreated stab wound.
appears that the plaintiff's primary concern is that he
was denied medical treatment for his stab wound. However,
Plainfield Correctional Facility is not a suable entity under
§ 1983 and therefore any claims against it must be
dismissed. Instead, “[f]or
constitutional violations under § 1983 or
Bivens, a government official is only liable for his
or her own misconduct.” Locke v. Haessig, 788
F.3d 662, 669 (7th Cir. 2015) (citation and quotation marks
omitted). Thus “[a] damages suit under § 1983
requires that a defendant be personally involved in the
alleged constitutional deprivation.” Matz v.
Klotka, 769 F.3d 517, 528 (7th Cir. 2014); 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.'”) (citation and quotation marks
for any conduct that the plaintiff maintains violated his
constitutional rights, the plaintiff must name as a defendant
and then set forth factual allegations against that defendant
that explain how the individual defendant is personally
responsible for the alleged harm. As set forth below, the
plaintiff will be given the opportunity to file an amended
complaint that does so.
on the foregoing, the plaintiff shall have through
December 8, 2017, in which to file an
amended complaint. The amended complaint will completely
replace the original complaint and therefore must be
complete. The amended complaint must have the words
“Amended Complaint” and the proper case number,
No. 1:17-cv-2639-SEB-DML, on the first page.
filing an amended complaint, the plaintiff shall conform to
the following additional guidelines: (a) the amended
complaint shall comply with the requirement of Rule 8(a)(2)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that pleadings
contain “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .”
and must allege facts (who did what when) rather than labels
and conclusions; (b) the amended complaint must identify what
legal injury plaintiff claims to have suffered and which
individuals are responsible for each such legal injury; and
(c) the amended complaint shall contain a clear statement of
the relief that is sought.
amended complaint is filed, it will be screened. If no
amended complaint is filed, the action will be dismissed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).