Jackson v. Himelick et al

Filing 14

OPINION AND ORDER: DIRECTING the clerk to place this cause number on a blank 42:1983 Prisoner Complaint form and send it to Pla Ricky Lynn Jackson, Sr.; GRANTING Pla, until 4/16/2015, to file an amended complaint; and CAUTIONING Pla, that if he does not respond by that deadline, this case will be dismissed pursuant to 28:1915A because the current complaint does not state a claim. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 3/6/2015. (lhc)(cc: Forms to Pla)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
RICKY LYNN JACKSON, SR.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
DARRELL HIMELICK, et al.,
Defendants.

CAUSE NO. 1:14-CV-368

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on the complaint filed
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Ricky Lynn Jackson, Sr., a pro se
prisoner, on November 24, 2014. For the reasons set forth below,
the court: (1) DIRECTS the clerk to place this cause number on a
blank 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Complaint form and send it to Ricky
Lynn Jackson, Sr.; (2) GRANTS Ricky Lynn Jackson, Sr., until April
16, 2015, to file an amended complaint; and (3) CAUTIONS Ricky Lynn
Jackson, Sr., that if he does not respond by that deadline, this
case will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because the
current complaint does not state a claim.

BACKGROUND
Jackson alleges that on September 25, 2014, a fellow inmate
punched him in the face with a closed fist causing an abrasion to
the inside of his bottom lip and injuring his back. He alleges that
Lt.

Jail

Commander

Cathy

Lee

failed

to

give

the

inmate

his

psychiatric medication that day. He alleges that Lt. Jail Commander

Cathy Lee placed him in a one man holding cell for fighting even
though he was acting in self defense. He alleges that Sheriff
Darrell Himelick, Lt. Jail Commander Cathy Lee, and Captain Randy
Albertson refused him medical treatment for his back and refused to
file charges against his attacker.

DISCUSSION
“A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a
pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotation marks and
citations omitted). However, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the
court must review the merits of a prisoner complaint and dismiss it
if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against
a defendant who is immune from such relief. “In order to state a
claim under § 1983 a plaintiff must allege: (1) that defendants
deprived him of a federal constitutional right; and (2) that the
defendants acted under color of state law.” Savory v. Lyons, 469
F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir. 2006).
At the time of these events, it is unclear whether Jackson was
a convicted prisoner or a pre-trail detainee at the jail. “Although
the Eighth Amendment applies only to convicted persons, pretrial
detainees . . . are entitled to the same basic protections under

-2-

the

Fourteenth

Amendment’s

due

process

clause.

Accordingly,

[courts] apply the same legal standards to deliberate indifference
claims brought under either the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment.”
Minix v. Canarecci, 597 F.3d 824, 831 (7th Cir. 2010).
When an inmate is attacked by another inmate, the Constitution
is violated only if “deliberate indifference by prison officials
effectively condones the attack by allowing it to happen.” Haley v.
Gross, 86 F.3d 630, 640 (7th Cir. 1996). The defendant “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). General
requests for help and expressions of fear are insufficient to alert
guards to the need for action. Klebanowski v. Sheahan, 540 F.3d
633, 639–40 (7th Cir. 2008). Here, Jackson does not allege that he
expressed any concerns about the other inmate prior to the attack.
Neither does he explain how Jail Commander Lee knew that the inmate
would become violent toward Jackson if he missed his medication.
Based on these allegations, he has not stated a claim for failing
to protect him.
Jackson is also suing Jail Commander Lee for placing him in a
one man holding cell for fighting even though he was acting in self
defense. However, “inmates do not have a constitutional right to
raise

self-defense

as

a

defense

in

the

context

of

prison

disciplinary proceedings.” Jones v. Cross, 637 F.3d 841, 848 (7th

-3-

Cir. 2011). After the fight, it was necessary for the jail to reestablish order and “[c]oncerns of security are to be given
‘particular sensitivity.’” Koger v. Bryan, 523 F.3d 789, 800 (7th
Cir. 2008). “[A] prison’s internal security is peculiarly a matter
normally left to the discretion of prison administrators [because
p]rison administrators should be accorded wide-ranging deference in
the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their
judgment are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and
to maintain institutional security.” Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S.
312, 321–22 (1986) (quotation marks and ellipsis omitted). Thus,
Jackson has not stated a claim for being placed in a holding cell
after the fight.
Jackson alleges that the defendants refused to file charges
against

his

attacker.

However,

“a

private

citizen

lacks

a

judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution
of another.” Del Marcelle v. Brown Cnty. Corp., 680 F.3d 887, 901
(7th Cir. 2012) quoting Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619
(1973). Therefore this does not state a claim.
Finally,

Jackson

alleges

that

the

defendants

denied

him

medical treatment. In medical cases, the Constitution is violated
only when a defendant was deliberately indifferent to an inmate’s
serious medical needs. Gutierrez v. Peters, 111 F.3d 1364, 1369
(7th Cir. 1997). “[C]onduct is deliberately indifferent when the
official has acted in an intentional or criminally reckless manner,

-4-

i.e., the defendant must have known that the plaintiff was at
serious risk of being harmed and decided not to do anything to
prevent that harm from occurring even though he could have easily
done so.” Board v. Farnham, 394 F.3d 469, 478 (7th Cir. 2005)
(quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted). “Negligence on
the part of an official does not violate the Constitution, and it
is not enough that he or she should have known of a risk. Instead,
deliberate indifference requires evidence that an official actually
knew

of

a

substantial

risk

of

serious

harm

and

consciously

disregarded it nonetheless.” Pierson v. Hartley, 391 F.3d 898, 902
(7th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). It is not enough to show that
a defendant merely failed to act reasonably. Gibbs v. Franklin, 49
F.3d 1206, 1208 (7th Cir. 1995). Even incompetence does not state
a claim of deliberate indifference. Walker v. Peters, 233 F.3d 494
(7th Cir. 2000).
Here, Jackson has not explained how serious an injury he
suffered to his back. The injury to his lip was minor and it cannot
be inferred that seeing it would have put anyone on notice that he
had a back injury. Jackson does not explain what each individual
defendant knew about his injury and how each one learned about it.
Though it is clear that he did not receive immediate medical
attention for his back, Jackson has not explained why he needed
immediate treatment. Neither does he say if or when he did receive
treatment for his back. Has he seen a doctor or nurse at the jail

-5-

since the attack? When? What diagnosis was made and treatment
prescribed?
A complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to “state
a claim that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility
when the pleaded factual content 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)
(citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “Factual allegations must be
enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, on
the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true
(even if doubtful in fact).” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quotation
marks, citations and footnote omitted). “[W]here the well-pleaded
facts

do

not

permit

the

court

to

infer

more

than

the

mere

possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but it has not
shown—that the pleader is entitled to relief.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
679 (quotation marks and brackets omitted). Thus, “a plaintiff must
do better than putting a few words on paper that, in the hands of
an imaginative reader, might suggest that something has happened to
her that might be redressed by the law.” Swanson v. Citibank, N.A.,
614 F.3d 400, 403 (7th Cir. 2010) (emphasis in original). Here,
Jackson has not plausibly alleged that any of these defendants were
deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need. Therefore this
complaint does not state a claim.

-6-

Nevertheless,

because

Jackson

might

be

able

to

provide

additional facts which could state a claim for the denial of
medical treatment against one or more of the defendants, he will be
granted

leave

to

file

an

amended

complaint.

See

Luevano

v.

Wal-Mart, 722 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir. 2013). In the amended complaint
he needs to clearly explain his back injury and what treatment he
has received for it. He needs to describe what each defendant
personally knew about his back injury and how each defendant
learned about it as well as how each defendant responded.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the court: (1) DIRECTS the
clerk to place this cause number on a blank 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Prisoner Complaint form and send it to Ricky Lynn Jackson, Sr.; (2)
GRANTS Ricky Lynn Jackson, Sr., until April 16, 2015, to file an
amended complaint; and (3) CAUTIONS Ricky Lynn Jackson, Sr., that
if he does not respond by that deadline, this case will be
dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because the current
complaint does not state a claim.

DATED: March 6, 2015

/s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United State District Court

-7-