United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY SCREENING AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND
DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE
WALTON PRATT, JUDGE
John Sims is a prisoner currently incarcerated at the New
Castle Correctional Facility (NCCF). 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.
§ 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 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 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 pleadings drafted by lawyers.”
Cesal, 851 F.3d at 720.
Sims names two defendants in this action: 1) Mr. Pearson; and
2) Mr. Nigel. He alleges that these two men were Prison Rape
Elimination Act (PREA) investigators who came to his cell on
August 6, 2018, and asked him about a PREA complaint that he
filed against his therapist for things the therapist said.
Mr. Sims alleges that the investigators should not have
talked to him in his cell where other people could hear the
conversation. He alleges that these were personal matters and
no one else's business. He alleges that the defendants
caused him emotional distress. He seeks $250, 000.00 in
exhibits attached to the complaint indicate that after Mr.
Sims complained about this, Mr. Nigel said that in the future
he would pull Mr. Sims out of his cell to discuss such
matters, and that he has, in fact, done so. Dkt. 1-1.
Sims does not allege any physical injury. Therefore, his
claims are barred pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e)
(“No Federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner
confined in a jail, prison, or other correctional facility,
for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody
without a prior showing of physical injury….”).
addition, Mr. Sims' concerns were promptly addressed and
corrected, and they do not rise to the level of a
constitutional violation. “[N]ot everything that is
undesirable, annoying, or even harmful amounts to a violation
of the law, much less a constitutional problem.”
Brown v. Chicago Board of Education, 824 F.3d 713,
714 (7th Cir. 2016).
the complaint must be dismissed for failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
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.
Report Change of Address
pro se plaintiff shall report any change of address
within ten (10) days of any change. If the plaintiff fails to
keep the Court informed of his current address, the action
may be subject to dismissal ...