United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY SCREENING AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND
DIRECTING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
WALTON PRATT, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
John Naylor, an Indiana inmate incarcerated at the Pendleton
Correctional Facility, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983
action on November 29, 2017. In forma pauperis
status was granted and on January 5, 2018, an initial partial
filing fee was paid. The complaint is now subject to
screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
plaintiff is a prisoner, the complaint is subject to the
screening requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This
statute directs that the court shall dismiss a complaint or
any claim within a complaint which “(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).
Assertions in the complaint
complaint is twenty-two pages, with eighteen of them
containing seventy-three handwritten, single-spaced, numbered
paragraphs. The assertions begin with accusing defendants and
another person of slandering Mr. Naylor with personal
attacks. He asserts that defendants have portrayed him as an
informant and created “a moving force . . . that lead
to . . . security threats against his person and loss of
legal work, materials, and property.” Dkt. 1, p. 2,
¶ 2. Mr. Naylor goes on to assert that prison officials
have failed to protect him, but he does not plead that he has
been harmed, name anyone who has harmed him, or plead the
circumstances of any harmful incident. Id. at ¶
Naylor goes on to assert that defendant King “falsely
convicted” him, and that defendant Alsip denied him an
appeal, thus taking good time from him without due process.
Id. at ¶ 9. He later pleads that he received a
rehearing on an A106 write-up, but that he had been denied
civil rights. Id. at ¶ 14. Mr. Naylor asserts
that somewhere in this process he was denied his requested
witnesses at a prison disciplinary hearing. Id. at
¶ 18. Other assertions are made that, in context, apply
to prison disciplinary actions and an alleged lack of due
process during the process. See Id. at ¶¶
Naylor also asserts that he was kept from Christian
Brotherhood services, several programs including substance
abuse treatment and group therapy, contact visitation,
regular commissary, showers, and “other normal
incidents of prison life.” Id. at ¶ 12.
He asserts that he has lost property such as commissary
items, electronics, and legal materials. The loss of the
legal materials has impeded his access to the courts.
Id. at ¶ 31.
defendants should have, but did not, verify the reliability
of confidential informants they used, Mr. Naylor claims.
Id. at ¶¶ 34-35. He does not plead in what
context the informants were used. Mr. Naylor then asserts
that defendants King and Alsip “upheld a false
conviction.” Id. at ¶ 39.
complaint then moves to a general discussion of Mr.
Naylor's mental state, starting with trial court
evaluations more than three years ago and asserting that
segregated confinement may be cruel and unusual punishment
for persons with weak coping mechanisms. Id. at
paragraph 47 of his complaint, Mr. Naylor complains that
defendant Duncan and the Office of Internal Affairs works to
ensure that he cannot file civil suits or criminal appeals.
He contends they have used tactics such as transferring him
between jails to keep their actions concealed. He provides no
other information about this defendant or what court filings
52 summarizes Mr. Naylor's assertions that he was set up
by other inmates for a false deadly weapon charge and robbed.
He contends the defendants failed to address “the
issue” at the facility level.
Naylor also summarily asserts that he has been denied access
to religious services, id. at ¶ 54, that
officials have an unconstitutional mail room policy that does
not allow newspaper clippings to be mailed to inmates,
id. at ¶ 55, and that there is a ban on
downloading information from the internet. Id. at
¶ 56. He asserts that incoming mail, including legal
mail, has been lost or confiscated. Id. at ¶
58. Mr. Naylor also asserts that the defendants' ...