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.

Turner v. Delaware County Jail

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

May 8, 2019

DAVID J. TURNER, Plaintiff,
v.
DELAWARE COUNTY JAIL, Defendant.

          ENTRY SCREENING AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

          TANYA WALTON PRATT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.

         Plaintiff David Turner is an inmate at the Delaware County Jail. Because Mr. Turner 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 amended complaint, dkt. 6.

         I. Screening Standard

         Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the Court must dismiss the amended 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 amended 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 amended 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 pleadings 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. Amended Complaint

         Mr. Turner asserts that the conditions of his confinement at the Jail violate his constitutional rights. He has supported his claims by describing eight specific conditions:

(1) Inmates are not segregated based on the nature of their alleged offenses or the risk they present to others.
(2) The jail is overcrowded. Thirty inmates are being housed in a cell block with capacity for twenty-four.
(3) The ventilation system is filthy and is not working.
(4) Inmates are confined to their cell blocks 24 hours per day, seven days per week, without any access to a recreation or exercise space.
(5) The Jail's staff is too small to properly supervise the inmates.
(6) The toilets are set to flush a limited number of times per hour. Due to the number of inmates, the toilets do not ...

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.