United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
RYAN E. LEE, Plaintiff,
STANLEY KNIGHT Warden, RAYMOND KINISON, I.D.O.C., JASON SERVIZZI IYC Head Maintenance, MYERS Lt., REBECCA J. TRIVETT Nurse Practitioner, WEXFORD MEDICAL COMPANY, MARK LEWIS Practitioner, D.D.S., Defendants.
ORDER SCREENING AMENDED COMPLAINT, DISMISSING
DEFICIENT CLAIMS, AND DIRECTING ISSUANCE AND
SERVICE OF PROCESS
WALTON PRATT, JUDGE
Ryan E. Lee is a prison inmate in the custody of the Indiana
Department of Correction (IDOC). After his arrival at the
Plainfield Correctional Facility he tripped on a sidewalk and
injured his face and teeth. Mr. Lee filed this 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 action against defendants asserting a variety of
claims but focusing on the conditions of the sidewalks and
prison officials' liability for not repairing the
sidewalks. On screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
the complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. Dkt. 6. Mr. Lee was allowed time
to show cause why this action should not be dismissed or to
file an amended complaint that cured the deficiencies
identified in the screening order. Id. Mr. Lee has
filed an amended complaint which is now subject the screening
under § 1915A. Dkt. 8. Mr. Lee is not proceeding in
forma pauperis. He had paid the filing fee. Dkt. 5.
to § 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 plaintiff are
construed liberally and held to “a less stringent
standard than pleadings drafted by lawyers.”
Cesal, 851 F.3d at 720.
The Amended Complaint and Analysis
Lee's amended complaint again names each defendant
identified in the original complaint. He shifts the focus of
the amended complaint to a deliberate indifference to his
serious medical needs against defendant Nurse Practitioner
Rebecca J. Trivett for not addressing the serious injury to
his mouth and teeth, not referring him to a physician, not
ordering x-rays, and delaying treatment. Dkt. 8, ¶¶
4-6. This Eighth Amendment claim shall
proceed. All other claims and defendants are
claim against the IDOC is dismissed for lack
of jurisdiction. “The Eleventh Amendment grants states
immunity from private suits in federal court without their
consent.” Nuñez v. Indiana Dep't of
Child Servs., 817 F.3d 1042, 1044 (7th Cir. 2016).
“An agency of the state enjoys this same
immunity.” Id. Because the IDOC is a state
agency, any claims against it are barred by the Eleventh
viable federal constitutional claims are made against
defendants Stanley Knight, Raymond Kinison, Jason Servizzi,
Lt. Meyers, Wexford Medical Company, and Mark Lewis.
Assertions concerning the conditions of the sidewalks fail to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted for the
reasons explained in the June 11, 2019, screening order. Dkt.
6. All claims against these defendants are
claims against Stanley Knight, Raymond Kinison, Jason
Servizzi, and Lt. Meyers are dismissed
because there are no allegations of misconduct that state a
federal civil rights claim made against them. See Burks
v. Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592, 593-96 (7th Cir. 2009)
(“Section 1983 does not establish a system of vicarious
responsibility. Liability depends on each defendant's
knowledge and actions, not on the knowledge or actions of
persons they supervise. . . . Monell's rule [is]
that public employees are responsible for their own misdeeds
but not for anyone else's.”) (citing Monell v.
New York City Dep 't of Social Services, 436 U.S.
amended complaint is silent as to defendants Mark Lewis and
Wexford Medical Company except to place them in the caption.
Any claims against them are dismissed. Where
a complaint “‘alleges no specific act or conduct
on the part of the defendant and the complaint is silent as
to the defendant except for his name appearing in the
caption, '” the complaint is properly dismissed.
Black v. Lane, 22 F.3d 1395, 1401 n.8 (7th Cir.
1994) (quoting Potter v. Clark, 497 F.2d 1206, 1207
(7th Cir. 1974)).
clerk is directed to terminate the IDOC,
Stanley Knight, Raymond Kinison, Jason Servizzi, Lt. Meyers,