United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, New Albany Division
ENTRY SCREENING COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING FURTHER
EVANS BARKER, JUDGE
William Easley is an inmate at the Clark County Jail. He
brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
that the defendants, who are officers at the Jail, have
violated his civil rights.
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).
alleges that, on July 21, 2017, Giltner “ran up in
[his] face in an aggressive and threatening manner” and
called him a “faggot bitch.” He also asserts that
on August 6, 2017, Giltner and Limbach required to him eat
breakfast on the dirty dayroom floor. He further states that
Giltner and Limbach did not allow him to go to the bathroom.
He says that inmates were denied phone privileges that day
and for a whole week they were stripped of their broom and
dustpan and other cleaning supplies. These lockdown actions
were at the instructions of Captain Nutter and Mr. Beard.
Finally, he says that Giltner told another inmate he was
sending him to the “hole” for writing a
Discussion of Claims
the screening standard to the factual allegations in the
complaint certain claims are dismissed while other claims
shall proceed as submitted.
claim that Giltner called Easley names must be
dismissed. See DeWalt v. Carter,
224 F.3d 607, 612 (7th Cir. 2000) (“The use of racially
derogatory language, while unprofessional and deplorable,
does not violate the Constitution.”) (citing Patton
v. Przybylski, 822 F.2d 697, 700 (7th Cir. 1987).
allegations that at the instruction of Captain Nutter and Mr.
Beard, Giltner and Limbach required to him eat breakfast on
the dirty dayroom floor, did not allow him to go to the
bathroom, and stripped inmates of their broom and dustpan and
other cleaning supplies shall proceed as a
claim that these defendants subjected Easley to
unconstitutionally harsh living conditions. It is unclear
whether Easley was a convicted inmate or a pre-trial detainee
at the time of these incidents. If he was a pre-trial
detainee, these claims shall proceed under
the Fourteenth Amendment. If he was a convicted inmate, the
claims shall proceed under the Eighth
claim that Giltner stated that he was sending Easley to the
“hole” for filing grievances shall
proceed as a claim that Giltner retaliated against
Easley in violation of the First Amendment.
claim against defendant Snelling is
dismissed because Easley does not allege
that Snelling personally participated in any of the alleged
violations of his rights. Matz v. Klotka, 769 F.3d
517, 528 (7th Cir. 2014) (“A damages suit under §
1983 requires that a defendant be personally involved in the