United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
SAMUEL D. FROGGE, Plaintiff,
KEITH BUTTS, BRUCE IPPEL, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DIVISION OF MEDICAL AND CLINICAL HEALTHCARE SERVICES, and CORIZON HEALTH SERVICES, Defendants.
ENTRY SCREENING COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING SERVICE OF
WALTON PRATT, JUDGE.
plaintiff is a prisoner currently incarcerated at New Castle
Correctional Facility (“New Castle”). 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 names four defendants: 1) Keith Butts, 2) Dr. Bruce
Ippel, 3) Indiana Department of Corrections Division of
Medical and Clinical Health Care Services, and 4) Corizon
Health Services. The plaintiff alleges that on July 21, 2016,
he broke his finger playing basketball while incarcerated at
New Castle. He was sent to the medical department that day
and was scheduled for an x-ray on July 28, 2016 at Meridian
Radiology. On August 12, 2016, the plaintiff was sent to Reid
Orthopedics Center, but the orthopedic surgeon was not
available that day so he had to be rescheduled to see Dr.
Ganeshan Ramachandran on September 1, 2016. Dr. Ramachandran
ordered four weeks of physical therapy before re-evaluation
for potential surgery. This plan was discussed with Dr. Ippel
when the plaintiff returned to New Castle. On November 18,
2016, the plaintiff filed a grievance, presumably regarding
his lack of treatment, but the grievance was rejected as
untimely. On January 22, 2016, the plaintiff wrote to the
Ombudsman complaining about the lack of treatment for his
finger. He saw a specialist the very next day. But by that
time, six months after his finger had been broken, the only
treatment available was prednisone injections for temporary
relief or an artificial joint. The plaintiff alleges that he
now suffers permanent and irreparable damage to his hand as a
result of the defendants' delays and lack of treatment.
He seeks declaratory relief and compensatory and punitive
Discussion of Claims
the screening standard to the factual allegations in the
complaint certain claims are dismissed while other claims
shall proceed as submitted.
all claims against Keith Butts are dismissed
because the complaint does not allege that Keith Butts had
any personal involvement in the alleged events.
“Individual liability under § 1983…
requires personal involvement in the alleged constitutional
deprivation.” Colbert v. City of Chicago, 851
F.3d 649, 657 (7th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation omitted)
(citing Wolf-Lillie v. Sonquist, 699 F.2d 864, 869
(7th Cir. 1983) (“Section 1983 creates a cause of
action based on personal liability and predicated upon fault.
An individual cannot be held liable in a § 1983 action
unless he caused or participated in an alleged constitutional
deprivation.... A causal connection, or an affirmative link,
between the misconduct complained of and the official sued is
all claims against the Indiana Department of Corrections
Division of Medical and Clinical Health Care Services are
dismissed because the Eleventh Amendment
immunity bars suits against states and their agencies
regardless of the relief sought, whether damages or
injunctive relief. Seminole Tribe of Florida v.
Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 58 (1996); Pennhurst State
School and Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 102
(1984). In addition, states and their agencies are not
“persons” subject to suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 under the circumstances alleged in Burchett's
complaint. Will v. Michigan Department of State
Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989).
the Court liberally construes the pro se plaintiff's
complaint to include a policy and practice claim against
Corizon Health Services. This claim shall
the deliberate indifference claim against Dr. Bruce Ippel
remaining claims are the only viable claims identified by the
Court. All other claims have been dismissed. If the plaintiff
believes that additional claims were alleged in the
complaint, but not identified by the Court, he shall ...