United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO
WALTON PRATT, JUDGE
Allen Crawford is a prisoner currently incarcerated at the
Plainfield Correctional Facility. He brings this civil rights
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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.”
Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 776 (7th Cir. 2015)
(internal quotation omitted).
complaint names the following defendants: 1) Branchville
Correctional Facility (“Branchville”); 2) Officer
M. Parrott; 3) Officer T. Smith; 4) Officer E. Gaynor; 5)
Officer C.T. Wise; 6) Officer Ward; and 7) Warden Alvey. Mr.
Crawford seeks compensatory damages and injunctive relief.
Mr. Crawford was first assigned to his cell at Branchville,
he reported to Officers Parrott and Smith that the toilet was
broken. These officers failed to report the need for repair.
Mr. Crawford alleges that later, Officer Ward falsely accused
him of breaking the toilet in his cell. Mr. Crawford was
charged with a conduct violation and sanctioned with the loss
of earned credit time (suspended) and restitution in the
amount of $109.16.
claim against Branchville is dismissed for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted
because Branchville is a building, not a suable entity.
are no allegations of wrongdoing alleged against Officers
Gaynor and Wise. “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
claim against Warden Alvey is that she failed to properly
train the officers to investigate matters like this. There
are insufficient facts to state a claim of failure to train
on the part of Warden Alvey. The claim against her is
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.
Crawford's allegations against Officers Parrott and Smith
are that they were negligent in failing to report his
complaints about the broken toilet. This is not sufficient to
state a constitutional claim. Waubanascum v. Shawano
County, 416 F.3d 658, 670 (7th Cir. 2005) (neither
negligence nor a violation of state law provide a basis for
liability under § 1983). Because all federal § 1983
claims upon which federal jurisdiction was predicated are
being dismissed, Mr. Crawford's supplemental
state law claims shall be dismissed without
prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
Crawford's claim against Officer Ward is construed as a
due process claim. Unfortunately for Mr. Crawford, however,
he does not have a constitutional right to avoid false
disciplinary charges. Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463
F.3d 621, 624-25 (7th Cir. 2006) (due process rights are not
violated if a false conduct report is filed). Any impropriety
with the conduct report and the investigation thereof would
be properly addressed during the disciplinary proceedings
where the mandates of Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S.
539 (1974), control and the result of which might be
challenged in a habeas proceeding, not a civil rights action.
“[E]ven assuming fraudulent conduct on the part of
prison officials, the protection from such arbitrary action
is found in the procedures mandated by due process.”
McPherson v. McBride,188 F.3d 794, 787 (7th Cir.
1999). “The hearing provided by CAB, and the ...