United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY SCREENING COMPLAINT, DISMISSING INSUFFICIENT
CLAIM, AND DIRECTING ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF PROCESS
William T Lawrence, United States District Court Judge
Tommy Kirtdoll, an Indiana inmate incarcerated at the
Correctional Industrial Facility, filed this 42 U.S.C. §
1983 action on December 12, 2017. In forma pauperis
was granted, and the initial partial filing fee has been
paid. The complaint is now ready for screening.
Screening of the Complaint
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).
Kirtdoll asserts that beginning on March 8, 2017, he
requested medical care for severe pain in his knee and asked
for a doctor. He asserts that for several months defendants
Lisa Bergeson, Nurse Lawrence, and Nurse Tina Collins have
refused to treat his knee pain or send him to a specialist to
determine its cause. He also contends the same three
defendants and Nurse Maxey have refused to provide emergency
medical attention for his internal and intestinal bleeding,
with blood in his stool. He fears he is “bleeding
out.” Mr. Kirtdoll asserts defendants' conduct is
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs and
violates his Eighth Amendment rights.
to the Eighth Amendment, prison officials have a duty to
provide humane conditions of confinement. They must take
reasonable measures to guarantee, among other things,
constitutionally adequate medical care. Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). Under the liberal
construction given to the pro se complaint, Mr.
Kirtdoll's Eighth Amendment claim shall
proceed as plead against defendants Lisa Bergeson,
Nurse Lawrence, Nurse Tina Collins, and Nurse Maxey.
Nurse Richey is named in the caption but otherwise not
mentioned in the complaint. “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).
Issuance and Service of Process
clerk is designated pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to defendants Lisa
Bergeson, Nurse Lawrence, Nurse Tina Collins, and Nurse Maxey
in the manner specified by Rule 4(d). Process shall consist
of the complaint, Dkt. No. 1, applicable forms (Notice of
Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and
Waiver of Service of Summons), and this Entry.
Other Claims or Defendants
Court has identified the only viable claims and defendants
appearing in the complaint. Should Mr. Kirtdoll believe the
Court has overlooked claims or defendants, he shall have
through February 20, 2018, ...