United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
RICHARD A. FOX, Plaintiff,
R. CARTER, R. BROWN, F. LITTLEJOHN, K. GILMORE, T. LITTLEJOHN, P. AXE, J. WEST-DENNING, K. HOBSON, R. ROBINSON, M. LEOHR, J. HENDRIX, M. ORBURN, C. MCDANIEL, G. SULLIVAN, Defendants.
ENTRY SCREENING COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING FURTHER
William T. Lawrence, Judge
Richard Fox, an inmate at the Wabash Valley Correctional
Facility (Wabash Valley), brings this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. 1983 alleging that his civil rights have been
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).
Allegations of the Complaint
alleges that he suffers from a degenerative back condition
known as spondylolysis which causes him severe pain. He
states that defendants Hobson and Robinson have falsified his
medical records and denied him adequate medical care for this
condition. He further asserts that Robinson falsified
information in response to grievances he filed related to his
care. In addition, defendant Dr. West-Denning has also denied
him adequate treatment for his pain and has prescribed him
medication to which he is allergic. According to Fox, Dr.
West-Denning has provided inadequate medical care in
retaliation and discrimination against him.
also alleges that defendants Robert Carter, R. Brown, K.
Gilmore, F. Littlejohn, T. Littlejohn, P. Axe, M. Leohr, J.
Hendrix, and M. Osburn are liable based on their supervisory
roles. He claims these defendants are all supervisory
officials who failed to remedy these wrongs after being made
aware of them through reports, complaints, and letters.
alleges that Brown, Gilmore, Hobson, F. Littlejohn, and T.
Littlejohn failed to provide adequate grievance procedures
and failed to ensure that medical personnel fulfilled the
standard of care.
goes on to allege that defendants M. Leohr, Jack Hendrix,
Richard Brown, Robert Carter, and Michael Osburn have failed
to provide him with a requested facility transfer and this
has resulted in the denial of his visitation rights.
Fox alleges that defendants Officer McDaniel and Sergeant
Sullivan falsified a conduct report against him which
resulted in his placement in segregation and the loss of his