United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division
OPINION AND ORDER
THERESA L. SPRINGMANN CHIEF JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Eugene Jackson, a pro se prisoner, filed a Complaint [ECF No.
1] arising from his March 1, 2016, arrest. Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court must review a prisoner
complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief. Courts apply the same standard under
§ 1915A as when addressing a motion to dismiss under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Lagerstrom v.
Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir. 2006). Under
federal pleading standards,
a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted
as true, to state a claim to 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
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 672 (2009)
(quotation marks and internal citations omitted).
Furthermore, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of
the cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements,
do not suffice.” Id. at 678. To survive
dismissal, the plaintiff “must do better than putting a
few words on paper that, in the hands of an imaginative
reader, might suggest that something has happened to
her that might be redressed by the law.”
Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400,
403 (7th Cir. 2010) (emphasis in original).
review, Jackson's Complaint is unduly vague and does not
adequately set forth his claims. It can be discerned that
Jackson's claims arise from Detective Natalie Lovett
obtaining a warrant that led to U.S. Marshal Eric Brown
arresting him on March 1, 2016. Without much detail, Jackson
complains that the arrest warrant in No. 79C01-1603-F1-4 was
not yet active. This is true. The online court docket
indicates that the arrest warrant in that case was not issued
by the court until March 10, 2016.
Gd4T0RFNE1EZ3dPamMxTXpnME16TXlabUk9In19. But, the fact that
No. 79C01-1603-F1-4 was not initiated until March 10, 2016,
does not mean that Jackson was falsely arrested on March 1,
2016. Indeed, the docket also reveals that on March 1, 2016,
there was an active warrant out for Jackson's arrest in
Gd4T0RFNE1EZ3dPamt5TVRrME1UUXlZamM9In19. Thus, without more,
it appears that Jackson was arrested on March 1, 2016, based
on the outstanding arrest warrant in No. 79C01-1602-F5-23.
pled, there are no facts contained in this Complaint from
which it could be reasonably inferred that either Brown or
Lovett violated any of Jackson's constitutional rights.
Indeed, even if he was arrested based on an invalid warrant,
Jackson does not allege that either Defendant knew or had any
reason to know that the warrant was not valid at the time of
the arrest. See Juris v. McGowan. 957 F.2d 345, 350
(7th Cir. 1992) (“Generally, a person arrested pursuant
to a facially valid warrant cannot prevail in a § 1983
suit for false arrest; this is so even if the arrest warrant
is later determined to have an inadequate factual
foundation.”). Thus, Jackson has not plausibly alleged
a claim against either Eric Brown or Natalie Lovett.
also complains that he was detained for more than seventy-two
hours at the Lake County Jail without being brought before a
judge or magistrate. Based on this claim, he is suing the
Lake County Jail. However, the jail is not a suable entity.
Smith v. Knox Cty. Jail, 666 F.3d 1037, 1040 (7th
the Complaint does not state a claim against any defendant,
Jackson will be afforded an opportunity to file an amended
complaint if he can cure the deficiencies noted above.
Luevano v. WalMart Stores, Inc., 722 F.3d 1014,
1022-23, 1025 (7th Cir. 2013). A copy of this Court's
approved form-Prisoner Complaint (INND Rev. 8/16)-is
available upon request from the prison law library. In any
amended complaint, he should explain in his own words what
happened, when it happened, where it happened, who was
involved, and how the defendants violated his constitutional
rights, providing as much detail as possible.
these reasons, the Court:
GRANTS Hirman Eugene Jackson to and
including September 10, 2018, to file an amended complaint;
and (2) CAUTIONS him that if he does not
respond by the deadline, this case will be dismissed without
further notice pursuant to 28 ...