United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
ENTRY SCREENING COMPLAINT, DISCUSSING MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS, AND DIRECTING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
R. SWEENEY II, JUDGE.
court, having considered the above action and the matters
which are pending, makes the following rulings:
action began when Chief Judge Magnus Stinson severed one
claim from a pleading Mr. Knighten filed in case number
2:19-cv-00229-JMS-DLP. See dkt. 1. That pleading was
filed as the complaint in this action, but nearly the entire
complaint concerned the claims proceeding in the other case.
See dkt. 2. Mr. Knighten was given until July 5,
2019, to file an amended complaint that discussed only his
claims concerning delays in receiving his medication.
See dkt. 7. The plaintiff failed to file an amended
complaint by the July 5, 2019 deadline. The Court granted the
plaintiff another opportunity to file an amended complaint by
September 3, 2019. See dkt. 9.
September 4, 2019, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint
that is similar in all respects to the original complaint.
However, the Court will screen the plaintiff's complaint
for claims related to Ms. Wolfe.
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 defendant. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the
Court must dismiss the complaint, or any portion of 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
[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 quotation omitted).
plaintiff alleges that Nurse Wolfe was deliberately
indifferent to the plaintiff's medical needs when she
delayed ordering his medication each month, requiring the
plaintiff to file regular grievances. Dkt. 14 at 13, 14. The
plaintiff seeks monetary relief.
constitutional provision implicated by the plaintiff's
claim is the Eighth Amendment's proscription against the
imposition of cruel and unusual punishments. Helling v.
McKinney, 113 S.Ct. 2475, 2480 (1993) (“It is
undisputed that the treatment a prisoner receives in prison
and the conditions under which he is confined are subject to
scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment.”). In order for an
inmate to state a claim under § 1983 for medical
mistreatment or the denial of medical care, the prisoner must
allege “acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to
evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical
needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106
(1976). Deliberate indifference exists only when an official
“knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an
inmate's health; the official must both be aware of facts
from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial
risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the
inference.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,
837 (1994) (construing Estelle).
the screening standard to the factual allegations in the
complaint, the plaintiffs Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference claim against Ms. Wolfe shall
clerk is directed pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to defendant Wolfe in
the manner specified by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d).
Process shall consist of the complaint (docket 14),
applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of
Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), and
September 4, 2019, the plaintiff also filed a motion for
temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
See dkt. 10. The plaintiffs motion is dated May 24,
2019, and the plaintiff asks to be transferred from the
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility to the Indiana State
Prison. The requested relief was granted in case number
2:19-cv-00229-JMS-DLP. For the foregoing reasons, the
plaintiffs motion for temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction, dkt. , is denied as
plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, dkt.  is denied as moot
because the relief sought was previously granted.
See dkt. 15.