United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
ROBERT K. DECKER, Plaintiff,
UNITED STATES FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendant.
ENTRY DENYING MOTION TO PORCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS,
DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT, AND DIRECTING THE PLAINTIFF TO FILE
AN AMENDED COMPLAINT
WILLIAM T. LAWRENCE, JUDGE
In Forma Pauperis
plaintiff has paid the $400.00 filing in this action. As
such, his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt.
No. 11, is denied as moot. The complaint is now ready for
plaintiff is a prisoner currently incarcerated at United
States Penitentiary-Terre Haute (USP-TH). 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). 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).
complaint alleges that the plaintiff has hepatitis C and that
the Bureau of Prisons medical staff does not properly or
adequately treat this condition in any infected inmate, in
violation of the Constitution. Specifically, the plaintiff
claims that he has been incarcerated since 2016 and has not
received any medical treatment for his hepatitis C. He
alleges he has been told it will be years before he is
provided any treatment.
plaintiff names the “Federal Bureau of Prisons, Medical
Care, Chronic Care Clinic” as the defendant. He seeks
injunctive relief in the form of treatment for himself and
all other inmates with hepatitis C. He also seeks class
certification. His claim is brought pursuant to the theory
set forth in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403
U.S. 388 (1971). Dkt. No. 1, p. 4.
Discussion of Claims
the screening standard to the factual allegations in the
complaint, the plaintiff's claim must be dismissed
because he fails to name an individual responsible for the
alleged misconduct. In Bivens claims, the complaint
must allege direct and personal responsibility for the
unlawful conduct and respondeat superior cannot be
the basis of a Bivens claim. There must be
individual participation and involvement by an individual.
Del Raine v. Williford, 32 F.3d 1024, 1047 (7th Cir.
such, the Bivens claim that the defendant
“Federal Bureau of Prisons, Medical Care, Chronic Care
Clinic” failed to treat his serious medical condition
is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.
the plaintiff seeks class certification to proceed on behalf
of all ...