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.

Gaines v. Carnes

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

March 25, 2019

AUGUSTUS GAINES, Plaintiff,
v.
CARNES, COMIA, UNKNOWN NURSE I, UNKNOWN NURSE II, Defendants.

          ENTRY SCREENING COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

          TANYA WALTON PRATT, JUDGE United States District Court

         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(a) to screen his complaint before service on the defendants. Pursuant to § 1915A(b), the Court must dismiss the complaint, or any portion of 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

         The complaint alleges that plaintiff Augustus Gaines has a rare bone disease. During all times relevant to the complaint, Mr. Gaines was an inmate at the Marion County Jail I. On or about December 20, 2016, his walker was broken due to no fault of his own. Mr. Gaines sought to have his walker replaced or fixed without success. On December 26, 2016, Mr. Gaines fell as a result of the faulty walker. He was unable to right himself. In response, defendants Officer Carnes and Officer Comia allegedly dragged and kicked Mr. Gaines into his cell. Unknown nurses failed to intervene. On January 17, 2017, Mr. Gaines submitted a healthcare request complaining of pain from the accident. He was denied medial attention to treat the injuries resulting from the fall. Mr.

         Gaines seeks money damages.

         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.

         First, claims against the unknown nurse defendants are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because “it is pointless to include [an] anonymous defendant [ ] in federal court; this type of placeholder does not open the door to relation back under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15, nor can it otherwise help the plaintiff.” Wudtke v. Davel, 128 F.3d 1057, 1060 (7th Cir. 1997) (internal citations omitted). If through ...


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.