United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY GRANTING IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS, DISMISSING
COMPLAINT, AND DIRECTING FILING OF AMENDED COMPLAINT
WALTON PRATT, JUDGE
Granting In Forma Pauperis Status
plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, dkt. , is granted to the
extent that the plaintiff is assessed an initial partial
filing fee of Seventeen Dollars and Seventeen Cents ($17.17).
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The plaintiff shall
have through July 15, 2019, in which to pay
this sum to the clerk of the district court.
plaintiff's motion contains the names of minor children
who, under Rule 5.2(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, should have been identified by their initials. The
clerk is directed to place this motion, dkt.
2, under seal.
Screening of the Complaint
plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Plainfield
Correctional Facility (“PCF”). Dkt. 1. 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 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 formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Perez v.
Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 776 (7th Cir. 2015) (internal
Velez brings this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1983, and he
names two defendants: Stanley Knight, the warden of PCF, and
PCF. He alleges that, during a physical altercation on
September 24, 2018, he was stabbed in his left ear and the
back of his head. He was taken to the hospital and received
stitches in his ear and staples in his head. He states that
he was stabbed in the presence of Correctional Officer King
and that PCF failed to protect him and keep him safe.
Velez's complaint must be dismissed for the following
reasons. First, any claim against PCF is
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. PCF is a building, not a suable
entity under § 1983. White v. Knight, 710
Fed.Appx. 260, 262 (7th Cir. 2018), cert. denied,
139 S.Ct. 107 (2018); Looney v. Miami Corr.
Facility, No. 3:18-cv-18-PPS/MGG, 2018 WL 1992197, *2
(N.D. Ind. Apr. 27, 2018) (dismissing Miami Correctional
any claim against Mr. Knight must be
dismissed because Mr. Velez has failed to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. There are no
allegations of personal wrongdoing against Mr. Knight in the
complaint. A defendant can be liable only for the actions or
omissions in which he personally participated. Colbert v.
City of Chicago, 851 F.3d 649, 657 (7th Cir. 2017);
Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 734 (7th Cir.
2001). Because vicarious liability does not apply to claims
under § 1983, “a plaintiff must plead that each
Government-official defendant, through the ...