United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY SCREENING AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING
EVANS BARKER, JUDGE United States District Court
plaintiff is a prisoner currently incarcerated at Putnamville
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).
plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 against three employees of Plainfield Correctional
Facility (“Plainfield”), Defendants Stanley
Knight, Internal Affairs Officer R. Gaskins, and an unknown
female correctional officer. The plaintiff alleges that,
while incarcerated at Plainfield, the unknown female
correctional officer facilitated another inmate's
entrance into the plaintiff's cell and that inmate
attacked the plaintiff with a knife. During the attack, the
plaintiff was stabbed in the leg. Although the plaintiff
asked Internal Affairs Officer R. Gaskins for medical
treatment for his leg, R. Gaskins refused. Another
correctional officer informed the plaintiff that R. Gaskins
directed him not to provide the plaintiff with medical
treatment because he was not cooperating with the
investigation. Eventually, the plaintiff was found guilty of
battery during a prison disciplinary proceeding and, among
other things, lost one-hundred-eighty days of earned credit
the plaintiff's claims against the unknown female
correctional officer must be dismissed.
“[I]t is pointless to include [an] anonymous defendant
 in federal court; this type of placeholder does not open
the door to relation back under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15, nor can it
otherwise help the plaintiff.” Wudtke v.
Davel, 128 F.3d 1057, 1060 (7th Cir. 1997) (internal
citations omitted). However, if the plaintiff is able to
identify the unknown officer through discovery, he may file a
motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.
the plaintiff's claims against Warden Stanley Knight are
dismissed. “For 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 omitted). There are no allegations in the
Amended Complaint regarding Warden Knight, let alone
allegations that he was personally involved in the alleged
plaintiffs allegations against R. Gaskin, however, are
sufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim against him.
This claim shall therefore proceed.
plaintiff is notified that he cannot obtain restoration of
his earned credit time or otherwise challenge his prison
disciplinary action via this civil rights action for money
damages under § 1983. He must bring a separate habeas
action if he wishes to do so.
the foregoing, the following claims shall
• An Eighth Amendment claim against R. Gaskin.
clerk is designated pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to defendant R. Gaskin
in the manner specified by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d).
Process shall consist of the Amended Complaint (docket 16),
applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver ...