United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY SCREENING COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING FURTHER
WALTON PRATT, JUDGE United States District Court
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).
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.
seeks money damages.
the screening standard to the factual allegations in the
complaint certain claims are dismissed while other claims
shall proceed as submitted.
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 ...