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.

Smith v. Plainfield Correctional Facility

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

February 8, 2019

LOWELL B. SMITH, Plaintiff,
v.
PLAINFIELD CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, RICE, J. TOMAW, RAYMOND KINISON, STANLEY KNIGHT, JONES, Defendants.

          ENTRY SCREENING COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

          TANYA WALTON PRATT, JUDGE

         I. Screening Standard

         The plaintiff is a prisoner currently incarcerated at Plainfield Correctional Facility. Because the plaintiff is a “prisoner” as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(c), this Court has an obligation under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) to screen his complaint before service on the defendants. Pursuant to § 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 Cesal v. Moats, 851 F.3d 714, 720 (7th Cir. 2017). 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).

         II. The Complaint

         Plaintiff Lowell B. Smith filed this civil action against 1) Plainfield Correctional Facility, 2) Sgt. Rice, 3) Lt. J. Tomaw, 4) Raymond Kinison, 5) Warden Stanley Knight and 6) Mr. Jones, Caseworker. He seeks $200, 000.00 in damages. The complaint is understood to be brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

         Mr. Smith alleges that he is being denied food. He explains that he uses a wheelchair and requires someone to push him to the chow hall. He alleges the following. Finding someone to push his wheelchair is the officers' responsibility. On December 12, 2018, Mr. Smith and two other inmates in wheelchairs were denied pushers and as a result were denied breakfast. Sgt. Rice and Lt. J. Tomaw were responsible for both the denial of the wheelchair pusher and the resulting denial of breakfast. Mr. Smith further alleges that he has been denied a wheelchair pusher and meals out of retaliation for filing a complaint about unsafe and dangerous walkways at Plainfield Correctional Facility.

         III. Discussion of Claims

         Applying the screening standard to the factual allegations in the complaint, certain claims are dismissed while other claims shall proceed as submitted.

         A. Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act Claims

         As a preliminary matter, this Court acknowledges that construed broadly the allegations in the complaint could be understood to allege a claim under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. To the extent Mr. Smith wants to pursue his claim that he has been denied access to the chow hall because of his disability, he should do so in case number 1:18-cv-3915-JPH-DLP. That action alleges that the Indiana Department of Correction violated the Rehabilitation Act by denying Mr. Smith safe access to the chow hall on December 4, 2018.

         B. Section 1983 Claims To state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that he or she was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, and that this deprivation occurred at the hands of a person or persons acting under the color of state law. D.S. v. E. Porter Cty. Sch. Corp., 799 F.3d 793, 798 (7th Cir. 2015) (citing Buchanan-Moore v. Cty. of Milwaukee, 570 F.3d 824, 827 (7th Cir. 2009)). For the reasons explained below, the rights at issue are based on the First and Eighth Amendments.

         1. Eighth ...


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.