United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ORDER SCREENING COMPLAINT, DISMISSING INSUFFICIENT
CLAIMS, AND DIRECTING ISSUANCE OF PROCESS
PATRICK HANLON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Ricky Underhill, an inmate at Plainfield Correctional
Facility, brings this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
that the defendants failed to protect him from other inmates.
Mr. Underhill is a prisoner, the Court must screen his
complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c). The Court must
dismiss any claim that is frivolous or malicious, fails to
state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b). 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 like Mr. Underhill's 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 nine defendants: (1) Emily Kardis, (2) Dushan
Zatecky, (3) Bob Turney, (4) Vedora Hinshaw, (5) Laura
Bodkin, (6) Jennifer Gibson, (7) Yovanne Shepherd (8) John
Doe #1, and (9) John Doe #2.
complaint alleges that another inmate attacked Mr. Underhill
on November 8, 2018. Mr. Underhill sustained head and face
injuries. Both John Doe defendants failed to intervene during
the attack and failed to escort Mr. Underhill to the medical
office afterward. Mr. Underhill was placed on cell-lock
status, which prevented any further attacks.
Underhill wrote letters to defendants Ms. Kardis, Mr.
Zatecky, Mr. Turney, and Ms. Hinshaw asking for help getting
medical treatment, but none responded. Mr. Underhill later
wrote letters to the same defendants telling them that he
continued to receive threats from the inmate who had attacked
him. On November 13, 2018, defendant Mr. Turney took pictures
of Mr. Underhill's face.
November 26, 2018, defendants Ms. Bodkin and Ms. Shepherd
refused to let Mr. Underhill file grievances against the John
Doe officers for failing to intervene and failing to help Mr.
Underhill get medical treatment. Defendants Ms. Kardis, Mr.
Zatecky, Mr. Turney, Ms. Hinshaw, and Ms. Gibson refused to
help Mr. Underhill re-file the grievances.
December 7, 2018, Mr. Underhill was removed from cell-lock
status and transferred from D House (“D1 side”)
to C House.
December 13, 2018, Mr. Underhill was returned to D House
(“D2 side”). He told defendants Ms. Kardis, Ms.
Hinshaw, and Ms. Gibson that other inmates had been
threatening him. Upon arrival his arrival in D House, other
inmates began extorting him for money.
December 17, 2018, Mr. Underhill notified defendants Ms.
Kardis, Mr. Zatecky, Mr. Turney, Ms. Hinshaw, and Ms. Gibson
that inmates were assaulting, extorting, and threatening him.
Mr. Underhill also filed formal grievances, ...