United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
ENTRY SCREENING COMPLAINT, DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS
AND DEFENDANTS, AND DIRECTING ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF
William T. Lawrence, Judge United States
Roger Jaske, an Indiana inmate incarcerated at the Wabash
Valley Correctional Facility, commenced this action on
November 9, 2017. In forma pauperis status was
sought and granted, and an initial partial filing fee has
been paid. Accordingly, the complaint is now subject to
screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Mr. Jaske is a prisoner, his complaint must be screened under
the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This statute
directs the Court to dismiss a complaint or any claim within
a complaint that “(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2)
seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief.” Id. To satisfy the
notice-pleading standard of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, 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)); see also Wade v. Hopper, 993
F.2d 1246, 1249 (7th Cir. 1993) (noting that the main purpose
of Rule 8 is rooted in fair notice: a complaint “must
be presented with intelligibility sufficient for a court or
opposing party to understand whether a valid claim is alleged
and if so what it is.”) (quotation omitted)). The
complaint “must actually suggest that the plaintiff has
a right to relief, by providing allegations that raise a
right to relief above the speculative level.” Windy
City Metal Fabricators & Supply, Inc. v. CIT Tech. Fin.
Servs., 536 F.3d 663, 668 (7th Cir. 2008) (quoting
Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1084 (7th Cir.
2008)). The Court construes pro se pleadings liberally, and
holds pro se pleadings to less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Obriecht v.
Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 491 n.2 (7th Cir. 2008).
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 under federal
[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, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Thus, a
“plaintiff must do better than putting a few words on
paper that, in the hands of an imaginative reader,
might suggest that something has happened to her
that might be redressed by the law.” Swanson v.
Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 403 (7th Cir. 2010)
(emphasis in original).
lawsuit flows from a flu shot given to Mr. Jaske on November
17, 2015. Mr. Jaske contends that after he received the
vaccine, his arm was red, painful, and swollen from his
shoulder to his wrist. Later his heartbeat became fast and
irregular, causing him to take his nitroglycerin pills and
aspirin. Mr. Jaske became dizzy, nauseous, and weak for three
days. On November 19, a nurse confirmed that Mr. Jaske was
having an allergic reaction to the flu shot and reported this
to defendant doctor Byrd. Mr. Jaske contends that Dr. Byrd
told the nurse to have Mr. Jaske fill out a health care
request form instead of seeing Mr. Jaske immediately as the
doctor should have done.
November 24, 2015, when his situation had not improved, Mr.
Jaske completed a health care request form. He saw a nurse on
November 26, 2015, who confirmed Mr. Jaske was still
suffering from an allergic reaction to the flu shot. She
reportedly told Dr. Byrd about the allergic reaction but Dr.
Byrd still did not see Mr. Jaske. Mr. Jaske also contends
that a mental health professional asked Dr. Byrd to examine
Mr. Jaske, but Dr. Byrd never did.
December 15, 2015, defendant Dr. Rajoli saw Mr. Jaske about
his flu vaccine reaction. Dr. Rajoli told Mr. Jaske that his
condition was not a reaction to the vaccine shot, but instead
was only lipoma, a swelling of soft tissue. Dr. Rajoli
declined to report Mr. Jaske's condition to a system for
recording adverse reactions to vaccines (the
“VAERS” system). Although Dr. Rajoli agreed to
Mr. Jaske's request to have a biopsy done on his arm, Dr.
Rajoli never followed through.
Jaske submitted a grievance on January 12, 2016, about the
denial of medical care for his arm. It was investigated by
Kevin Gilmore, who reportedly found that Corizon Health
Care's treatment was appropriate. Mr. Jaske contends
Gilmore lied and has named him a defendant in his complaint,
although his name does not appear in the caption. Dkt. No. 2
at p. 9. It is contended that Gilmore lied to protect Corizon
Health, and that by doing so Mr. Jaske has been denied his
right to fairly use the prison grievance system.
Teresa Littlejohn, the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility
grievance specialist, denied Mr. Jaske's formal
grievance. Mr. Jaske has named her a defendant because he
contends she unfairly denied his formal grievance, overlooked
or ignored evidence, and protected Corizon.
Mr. Jaske lodged a final appeal of his grievance concerning
the medical care for his arm, it was denied on February 24,
2016, by Linda Vannatta, the final reviewer for grievances.
Mr. Jaske contends Vannatta's decision was based on a
review by Esther Hinton, the Corizon Health contract monitor
for the Department of Correction. He contends Hinton ...