United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
ENTRY SCREENING COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING FURTHER
PATRICK HANLON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
plaintiff is a prisoner currently incarcerated at Wabash
Valley Correctional Center. 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).
complaint names two defendants: 1) Christopher Nicholson, and
2) Officer Willoughby. The plaintiff alleges that on May 22,
2019, defendant Willoughby used excessive force when he
slammed the tray slot on the plaintiff's hand and bent
the plaintiff's arm for the purpose of causing the
plaintiff pain. The plaintiff wrote to Lt. Nicholson about
the incident, but Lt. Nicholson did not punish Officer
Willoughby. Lt. Nicholson's failure to punish Officer
Willoughby has left the plaintiff in fear of future attacks
by Officer Willoughby. The plaintiff seeks monetary damages.
the screening standard to the factual allegations in the
complaint certain claims are dismissed while other claims
shall proceed as submitted.
all claims against Lt. Christopher Nicholson are
dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Plaintiff claims that Christopher Nicholson was deliberately
indifferent the plaintiff's risk of future injury when
Lt. Nicholson failed to punish Officer Willoughby for
assaulting the plaintiff. This claim fails because the
plaintiff has not shown an actual injury-either
“physical harm [or] the kind of extreme and
officially sanctioned psychological harm that might
support a claim for damages under the Eighth
Amendment.” Doe v. Welborn, 110 F.3d 520, 524
(7th Cir. 1997) (emphasis added); see Babcock v.
White, 102 F.3d 267, 273 (7th Cir. 1996) (holding that
the plaintiff's “allegations of deliberate
indifference do not exemplify the egregious conduct”
causing psychological harm “sufficient to entitle him
to damages under the Eighth Amendment”); see also
Whiteside v. Pollard, 481 Fed.Appx. 270, 272 (7th Cir.
2012) (holding that the plaintiff did not present evidence
that the defendants exposed him to a risk of harm “out
of malice, which [he] needed to demonstrate in order to
establish a failure-to-protect claim”).
plaintiffs excessive force claim against Officer Willoughby
shall proceed. This summary of remaining
claims includes all the viable claims identified by the
Court. All other claims have been dismissed. If the plaintiff
believes that additional claims were alleged in the
complaint, but not identified by ...