Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Douglas v. Butts

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division

July 2, 2018

MONWELL DOUGLAS, Plaintiff,
v.
KEVIN BUTTS Superintendent, New Castle Correctional Facility NCCF, B. RANDLE Unit Team Manager UTM NCCF, R. BLAIR Former Work Manager CWM NCCF, S. MILLER Counselor / CWM NCCF, JOHN JEWELL Legal Library Supervisor NCCF, MARY CECIL Legal Library Supervisor, LINDA VANNATTA Grievance Manager IDOC, Defendants.

          ORDER SCREENING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

          TANYA WALTON PRATT, JUDGE

         Plaintiff Monwell Douglas is an inmate confined at the Miami Correctional Facility and is therefore a “prisoner” as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h). Consequently, this Court has an obligation under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) to screen his first amended complaint before service on the defendants.

         I. Screening Standard

         Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the Court must dismiss a 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 a 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 Mr. Douglas's 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).

         II. The First Amended Complaint

         The first amended complaint describes incidents that allegedly occurred between April 2017 and April 2018 while Mr. Douglas was confined at New Castle Correctional Facility (NCCF). All told, it asserts claims based on at least six legal theories and against nine defendants. In previous orders, the Court dismissed two of those claims because they did not state plausible claims for relief. Construing the first amended complaint liberally, the Court has identified four additional claims that may proceed. However, these claims will not proceed against all the defendants named in the first amended complaint.

         A. Eighth Amendment Conditions-of-Confinement Claims

         The first amended complaint alleges that Defendants Randle, Lee, and Miller denied Mr. Douglas adequate access to recreation. It further alleges that Defendant Lee denied Mr. Douglas access to showers and materials necessary to clean his cell. This action shall proceed with claims that Defendants Randle, Lee, and Miller maintained inhumane conditions of confinement in violation of Mr. Douglas's Eighth Amendment rights.

         B. Equal Protection Claim Based on Racial Discrimination

         The first amended complaint alleges that Defendant Miller denied Mr. Douglas access to and wages from a prison job based on his race. This action shall proceed with a claim that Defendant Miller engaged in race-based discrimination against Mr. Douglas in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the laws.

         C. Due Process Claim

         The first amended complaint alleges that Defendant Miller denied Mr. Douglas access to an annual review proceeding affecting issues related to his prisoner classification and placement. This action shall proceed with a claim that Defendant Miller denied Mr. Douglas access to his ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.