United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
ENTRY SCREENING COMPLAINT, DISMISSING INSUFFICIENT
CLAIM, AND DIRECTING ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF PROCESS
William T. Lawrence, Judge United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Plaintiff Shamir Chappell, an Indiana inmate incarcerated at
the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility (WVCF), filed this 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action on December 6, 2017. In
forma pauperis was granted and an initial
partial filing fee has been paid.
Screening of the Complaint
Mr. Chappell 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).
Chappell sets out three grounds for relief. First, he asserts
that his Eighth Amendment rights are being violated by
Wexford Medical Services, a contract provider of medical
services for the Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC), by
its failure to provide enough physicians to handle the
medical needs of over 2, 000 inmates. He also contends that
Wexford employs a nurse, Barbara Riggs, who interferes with
the inmates' access to medical care.
second ground for relief, Mr. Chappell asserts that Dr.
Samuel Byrd failed to properly treat his serious pain,
choosing a less efficacious treatment rather than diagnosing
the cause of the pain.
third ground for relief asserts that Nurse Barbara Riggs
continually denied and delayed Mr. Chappell's access to
physicians and proper medical treatment.
Chappell's claim that Wexford fails to sufficiently staff
the medical providers at WVCF and hired and supervised Nurse
Riggs knowing she fails to provide adequate care shall
proceed as a claim that Wexford maintained a policy that
resulted in deliberate indifference to his serious medical
needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. His deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs claims against Dr. Byrd
and Nurse Riggs shall also proceed. Although
named in the caption and identified in the complaint, Regina
Robinson is otherwise not mentioned. Because no claim is
asserted against Ms. Robinson, she is
dismissed from this action. “Where a
complaint alleges no specific act or conduct on the part of
the defendant and the complaint is silent as to the defendant
except for his name appearing in the caption, the complaint
is properly dismissed.” Potter v. Clark, 497
F.2d 1206, 1207 (7th Cir. 1974). The clerk is
directed to update the docket to reflect Regina
Opportunity to Show Cause
Court has identified the only viable claims and defendants
appearing in the complaint. Should Mr. Chappell believe the
Court has overlooked claims or defendants that appeared in
the complaint, he shall have through February 15,
2018, in which to identify those claims and
defendants and notify the Court.
Issuance and Service of Process Theclerk ...