United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY SCREENING COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING FURTHER
WALTON PRATT, United States District Court Judge
Screening of the Complaint
Richard Dodd is a prisoner currently incarcerated at
Westville Correctional Facility. He filed this civil action
alleging that for about two years while he was incarcerated
at Pendleton Correctional Facility and housed in the O-Dorm
Unit, he was subjected to extreme temperature conditions
which caused him pain. Specifically, he was placed in a cell
with a broken window and a hot water pipe. Freezing cold air
and rain (which dripped into the electrical outlet) came in
through the broken window. The hot water pipe burned him. The
individual defendants Dushan Zatecky, Duane Alsip, Steve
Krause, Nancy Spurgeon and Nathan Lagenour were allegedly
responsible for the failure to fix these problems but took no
action to resolve the problem while Mr. Dodd was housed in
O-Dorm. These actions allegedly violated the Eighth
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
complaint has been screened and the Eighth Amendment claims
for money damages against the defendants in their individual
capabilities shall proceed as submitted.
claim for injunctive relief is dismissed,
however, because Mr. Dodd is no longer at Pendleton or
exposed to the conditions of which he complains. “A
court's power to grant injunctive relief only survives if
such relief is actually needed.” Nelson v.
Miller, 570 F.3d 868, 882-83 (7th Cir. 2009).
claims against the defendants in their official capacities is
dismissed. This is because an official
capacity claim against the defendant individuals as employees
of the Indiana Department of Correction would in essence be
against the State of Indiana. Such claims are barred by the
Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the
doctrine of sovereign immunity. See Kentucky v.
Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165-67 and n.14 (1985) (suit for
damages against state officer in official capacity is barred
by the Eleventh Amendment); see also Omosegbon v.
Wells, 335 F.3d 668, 673 (7th Cir. 2003) (the state is
not a “person” that can be sued under 42 U.S.C.
plaintiff believes that additional claims were alleged in the
complaint, but not identified by the Court he shall have
through February 13, 2017, in which to
identify those claims.
Duty to Update Address
se plaintiff shall report any change of address within ten
(10) days of any change. The Court must be able to locate the
plaintiff to communicate with him. If the plaintiff fails to
keep the Court informed of his or her current address, the
action may be subject to dismissal for failure to comply with
Court orders and failure to prosecute.
Service of Process
clerk is designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
4(c)(3) to issue process to defendants Superintendent Dushan
Zatecky, Assistant Superintendent Duane Alsip, Maintenance
Supervisor Steve Krause, Officer in Charge of O-Dorm Nancy
Spurgeon, and Unit Team Manager Nathan Lagenour in the manner
specified by Rule 4(d). Process shall consist of the
complaint filed on October 27, 2017, (docket 2), applicable
forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of
Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), and this Entry.
clerk is designated to serve the Indiana Department of
Correction employees electronically.