United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING FURTHER
WALTON PRATT, JUDGE
action was opened on September 14, 2018, when the plaintiff
filed a complaint in the Northern District of Indiana. A
judge in the Northern District screened the complaint and
directed plaintiff to file an amended complaint. The
plaintiff filed an amended complaint on December 14, 2018. On
January 14, 2019, the action was transferred to this Court in
the Southern District of Indiana. Dkt. 11.
amended complaint is also subject to the screening
requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). This statute
directs that the court dismiss a complaint or any claim
within a complaint which “(1) is frivolous, malicious,
or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted;
or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief.” Id.
amended complaint, the plaintiff alleges that his rights were
violated by HTCF and the Indiana Department of Correction
(IDOC). He alleges that he had an original release
date of December 22, 2018, and filed a motion for sentence
modification in 2017. While his motion for sentence
modification was being considered by the court (the plaintiff
does not identify which court he filed his motion for
sentence modification in), he received bogus write-ups that
were later dismissed. The plaintiff alleges the bogus
write-ups were filed against him because he filed a petition
for habeas corpus. This, the plaintiff alleges, is a due
plaintiff also alleges that the HTCF contacted the court and
had his motion for sentence modification stopped based on the
bogus conduct reports. Had he prevailed on his sentence
modification, the plaintiff alleges he would have been
released in 2017, but he has been held beyond his out date
based on lies by the HTCF. The plaintiff alleges that this
conduct was a violation of the Eighth Amendment and the bogus
write-ups were filed in retaliation. As relief, the plaintiff
seeks “all financial relief, as granted by federal
law.” Dkt. 8.
plaintiff named as defendants the IDOC and HTCF. First, any
claim against the IDOC for damages must be dismissed. The
amended complaint has not named any “person” who
is allegedly responsible for violating the plaintiff's
rights. The claims against the IDOC are dismissed because
such claims for damages are barred by the Eleventh Amendment
to the United States Constitution, and the doctrine of
sovereign immunity. Joseph v. Board of Regents of
University of Wisconsin System, 432 F.3d 746, 748 (7th
Cir. 2005). An agency of the state enjoys that same immunity.
Nuñez v. Indiana Dep't of Child Services,
817 F.3d 1042, 1044 (7th Cir. 2016).
claims against HTCF are dismissed because this facility is
not a “person” subject to suit pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. A defendant can only be liable for the
actions or omissions in which he personally participated.
Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 734 (7th Cir.
2001). “Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to
. . . § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each
Government-official defendant, through the official's own
individual actions, has violated the Constitution.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1948 (2009).
Dismissal of Action
the Court has been unable to identify a claim for relief
against any particular defendant, the amended complaint is
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
“[A] plaintiff can plead himself out of court by
alleging facts that show there is no viable claim.”
Pugh v. Tribune Co., 521 F.3d 686, 699 (7th Cir.
2008). That is the case here. The dismissal of the complaint
will not in this instance lead to the dismissal of the action
at present. Instead, the plaintiffs shall have
through February 25, 2019, in which
to file a second amended complaint.
filing a second amended complaint, the plaintiff shall
conform to the following guidelines: (a) the second amended
complaint shall comply with the requirement of Rule 8(a)(2)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that pleadings
contain “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. . . .,
” which is sufficient to provide the defendant with
“fair notice” of the claim and its basis.
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007); (b) the
second amended complaint must include a demand for the relief
sought; and (c) the second amended complaint must identify
what legal injury the plaintiff claims to have suffered and
what persons are responsible for each such legal injury. The
plaintiff must state his claims “in numbered
paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single
set of circumstances.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(b).
second amended complaint should have the proper case number,
1:19-cv-0123-TWP-TAB and the words “Second Amended
Complaint” on the first page. If a second amended
complaint is filed as directed above, it will be screened. If
no second amended complaint is filed, this action will be
dismissed for the reasons set forth above.