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.

Lee v. Knight

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

July 8, 2019

RYAN E. LEE, Plaintiff,
v.
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

          TANYA WALTON PRATT, JUDGE

         I. Introduction

         Plaintiff 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.

         II. Screening Standard

         Pursuant 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.

         III. The Amended Complaint and Analysis

         Mr. 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 dismissed.

         Any 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 Amendment.

         No 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 dismissed.

         Any 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. 658 (1978)).

         The 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)).

         The clerk is directed to terminate the IDOC, Stanley Knight, Raymond Kinison, Jason Servizzi, Lt. Meyers, Wexford ...


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.