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.

Griffin v. Evans

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

December 9, 2019

VIRGIL GRIFFIN, Plaintiff,
v.
C. EVANS, et al. Defendants.

          Bryan Findley INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL

          Matthew Stephen Koressel INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL

          Sarah Jean Shores INDIANA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

          Jordan Michael Stover INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL

          ENTRY SCREENING SIXTH AMENDED COMPLAINT, DISMISSING INSUFFICIENT CLAIMS, AND DIRECTING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

          James Patrick Hanlon, United States District Judge

         On November 18, 2019, the plaintiff filed a sixth amended complaint. Dkt. 109. The plaintiff, Virgil Griffin, is an inmate currently incarcerated at Pendleton Correctional Facility (“PCF”). Dkt. 109. Because Mr. Griffin 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.

         I. Screening of the Complaint

         A. Screening Standard

         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).

         B. Plaintiff's Complaint

         Mr. Griffin brings this case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He names several defendants: 1) Case Work Manager Chad Evans; 2) Dr. Ciemone Easter-Rose; 3) Mental Health Specialist Perdue; 4) Lieutenant Ernest; 5) Sergeant Holmes; 6) Dr. Talbot; 7) Director of Nursing Stephens; 8) Nurse Moore-Groves; 9) Correctional Officer Fish; 10) Nurse Walker; 11) Lieutenant McCutcheon; 12) Sergeant Sarten; and 13) Wexford Health. He seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages.

         Mr. Griffin alleges that, on February 11, 2019, inmate Ryan Eslick stabbed him with a “spear.” Dkt. 109 at 6. This occurred while Mr. Eslick was in the shower and Mr. Griffin was passing by the shower. Mr. Griffin alleges that, prior to this incident, Mr. Eslick had warned Lieutenant Ernest, Mental Health Specialist Perdue, and Dr. Easter-Rose that he would assault people and continue to escalate his assaults until he was provided appropriate mental health treatment. Mr. Griffin further alleges that Sergeant Holmes knew that Mr. Eslick needed to shower separately because he had previously assaulted another inmate ...


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.