United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
JOSEPH A. ESPARZA, Plaintiff,
PLATZ, IPPLE, MULLEN, PERKINS, CORIZON MEDICAL CARE, WEXFORD MEDICAL, Defendants.
ENTRY DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING FILING OF
WALTON PRATT, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Joseph A. Esparza is an Indiana state prisoner confined at
the New Castle Correctional Facility. He alleges that his
medical providers have been deliberately indifferent to his
serious medical needs. Because 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).
state a cognizable claim under the federal notice pleading
system, the plaintiff is required to provide a “short
and plain statement of the claim showing that [he] is
entitled to relief[.]” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). It is not
necessary for the plaintiff to plead specific facts, and his
statement need only “give the defendant fair notice of
what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S.
41, 47 (1957)); see Christopher v. Buss, 384 F.3d
879, 881 (7th Cir. 2004). However, a complaint that offers
“labels and conclusions” or “formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not
do.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). The
complaint allegations “must be enough to raise a right
to relief above the speculative level.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; Christopher, 384
F.3d at 881.
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).
Dismissal of Complaint
Statute of Limitations
complaint is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To
state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the
violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of
the United States and must show that the alleged deprivation
was committed by a person acting under color of state law.
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Suits under
§ 1983 use the statute of limitations and tolling rules
that states employ for personal-injury claims. In Indiana,
the applicable statute of limitations period is two years.
See Richards v. Mitcheff, 696 F.3d 635, 637 (7th
Cir. 2012); Ind. Code § 34-11-2-4.
action was signed on April 19, 2018, and filed on April 26,
2018. Accordingly, claims which accrued before April 19,
2016, are barred by Indiana's 2-year statute of
limitations. “It is, of course, ‘irregular'
to dismiss a claim as untimely under Rule 12(b)(6). . . .
However, . . . dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) on the basis of
a limitations defense may be appropriate when the plaintiff
effectively pleads [himself] out of court by alleging facts
that are sufficient to establish the defense.”
Hollander v. Brown, 457 F.3d 688, 691 n.1 (7th Cir.
2006) (internal citations omitted); see also Koch v.
Gregory, 536 Fed.Appx. 659 (7th Cir. 2013) (stating that
when the language of the complaint plainly shows that the
statute of limitations bars the suit, dismissal under §
1915A is appropriate); Brownmark Films, LLC v. Comedy
Partners, 682 F.3d 687, 690 (7th Cir. 2012).
means that claims based on a March 2013 car accident, a 2013
“scope for Barits”, an X-ray delayed until March
2016, and immobility caused by back pain which occurred in
2014, are dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations.
officials violate the Eighth Amendment when they are
deliberately indifferent to the serious medical needs of
prisoners. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104
(1976). To establish a deliberate-indifference claim, a
prisoner must demonstrate both that his medical condition is
“objectively” serious and that the officials
acted with a “sufficiently culpable state of
mind.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,
834-35, (1994). “[A] prison official cannot be found