Armalin v. Grant County Jail et al

Filing 15

OPINION AND ORDER: GRANTING Alexander Jermaine Armalin leave to proceed against Ofcr Dean, Cpl Carmichael, Capt Lee, and Cpl Kurtpatrick in their individual capacities for compensatory damages for denying him medical treatment on 1/14/2015, in vio lation of the 14th Amendment; GRANTING him leave to proceed against Ofcr Purdy and Cpl Carmichael in their individual capacities for compensatory damages for denying him medical treatment on 1/15/2015, in violation of the 14th Amendment; GRANTING h im leave to proceed against Cpl Kurtpatrick in his individual capacity for compensatory damages for denying him medical treatment on the day he returned to the Grant Co Jail from the Morgan Co Jail in violation of the 14th Amendment; DISMISSING all other claims; DISMISSING Grant Co Jail, Sheriff Reggie Nevels, Medical Staff Tracey Law, Morgan Co Jail, Jail Commdr David Rogers, Medical Staff Racheal, Lt. Kathy Lee, Sheriff Daryl Himelick, Cpt. Randy Albertson, Cpl. Kirkpatrick, Cpl. Purdy, an d Ofcr Rumple; DIRECTING the clerk to transmit the summons and USM-285 for Ofcr Dean, Cpl Carmichael, Capt Lee, Cpl Kurtpatrick, and Ofcr Purdy to the USMS along with a copy of the Second Amended Complaint 14 and this Order; DIRECTING the USMS, pursuant to 28:1915(d), to effect service of process on Ofcr Dean, Cpl Carmichael, Capt Lee, Cpl Kurtpatrick, and Ofcr Purdy; and ORDERING, pursuant to 42:1997e(g)(2), that Ofcr Dean, Cpl Carmichael, Capt Lee, Cpl Kurtpatrick, and Ofcr Purdy respond, as provided for in the Fed R Civ P and N.D. Ind. L.R. 10-1(b), only to the claims for which the plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in this screening order. Signed by Judge Theresa L Springmann on 2/19/2016. (lhc)(cc: Plaintiff/USMS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
ALEXANDER JERMAINE ARMALIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
GRANT COUNTY JAIL, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO.: 1:15-CV-244 TLS

OPINION AND ORDER
Alexander Jermaine Armalin, a pro se prisoner, filed a Second Amended Complaint
[ECF No. 14]. In his original complaint [ECF No. 1], he attempted to join claims which arose in
the Grant County Jail with claims which arose in the Morgan County Jail. Here, though he
mentions events which occurred in the Morgan County Jail, he explains that he is “suing some of
the Grant County Jail employees for not providing me with medical attention and subjecting me
to an unsafe environment which affected my security and safety.” (Second Am. Compl. 1, ECF
No. 14.) “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) (internal citations and quotation marks
omitted). Nevertheless, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, this Court must review the complaint and
dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief. “In order to state a claim under [42 U.S.C.]
§ 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).

Armalin does not include a separate section in the amended complaint listing his
defendants, but in the relief section he did include a list of defendants from whom he is seeking
monetary damages. (Second Am. Compl. 5.) Based on that list, it is clear that in this complaint
he is suing Officer Dean, an unknown Officer, Officer Purdy, Corporal Carmichael, Nurse Tracy
Law, Captain Lee, and Corporal Kurtpatrick. Though it is understandable that he may not know
the names of everyone involved, “it is pointless to include lists of anonymous defendants in
federal court . . . .” Wudtke v. Davel, 128 F.3d 1057, 1060 (7th Cir. 1997). Therefore, the
unknown officer will be dismissed. If Armalin is able to learn the name of this defendant in the
future, he may file a motion asking for leave to file an amended complaint to which he attaches
an amended complaint setting forth his claim(s) against that officer as well as the other officers
he is suing at that time.
Armalin alleges that while he was a pretrial detainee at the Grant County Jail, he was
attacked by the same inmate in August 2014 and on January 14, 2015. (Second Am. Compl.
1–2.) “In evaluating the constitutionality of conditions or restrictions of pretrial detention . . . the
proper inquiry is whether those conditions amount to punishment of the detainee.” Bell v.
Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979). Here, Armalin does not allege that any of the defendants
sought to punish him by housing him with the inmate who attacked him. Nevertheless, “in the
absence of an expressed intent to punish, a pretrial detainee can nevertheless prevail by showing
that the actions are not ‘rationally related to a legitimate nonpunitive governmental purpose’ or
that the actions ‘appear excessive in relation to that purpose.’” Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135
S.Ct. 2466, 2473 (2015) (quoting Bell, 441 U.S. at 561). However, when judging what is
rationally related or what is excessive, “prison administrators [are] accorded wide-ranging
2

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.” Bell, 441
U.S. at 547.
The first time that Armalin was attacked by his cell mate, he and Babbitt had been housed
together for “less than six hours” when they got into a fight because Babbitt was stealing his
property. (Second Am. Compl. 1–2.) Though unfortunate, these facts give no indication that any
defendant acted irrationally when assigning cell mates. Following the attack, Babbitt was
relocated to another dorm for more than three and a half months. Then on January 14, 2015, “the
administration committee at the Grant County Jail assigned inmate Babbitt to [a] cellblock . . .
where he was able to come in direct contact with [Armalin].” (Id. at 2.) That same day, they
fought again. Armalin alleges that for months he had been told by other inmates that Babbitt was
going to attack him again, but there is no indication that anyone on the administration committee
knew about these threats. Moreover, there is no indication that any of the Defendants were on the
administration committee that made this decision.
A complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to “state a claim that is plausible on its
face.” Bell Atl. 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
3

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). Because this
complaint does not allege facts from which it can be plausibly inferred that any of the Defendants
were involved in the relocation of Babbitt or that doing so was irrational, Armalin has not stated
a claim for failing to protect him.
Armalin also alleges that he was denied medical treatment following the attack on
January 14, 2015. On that day, he alleges that he notified Defendants Officer Dean, Corporal
Carmichael, Captain Lee, and Corporal Kurtpatrick “that my left hand was in severe pain, my lip
was cut, and that it was difficult for me to see out of one eye.” (Second Am. Compl. 3.) He
alleges that despite his requests for help, he was not allowed to see a health care provider.
Armalin alleges that on January 15, 2015, he asked Officer Purdy and Corporal Carmichael for
medical attention, but was refused because he was being transferred to another jail. After he
returned to the Grant County Jail, he asked Corporal Kurtpatrick for medical attention. Corporal
Kurtpatrick told him that he would get to see a medical provider, but he was placed in solitary
confinement and did not receive any medical attention. Although there may have been legitimate
reasons why some or all of these defendants did not have Armalin examined by a medical
professional, he has plausibly alleged that their inaction was not rationally related to a legitimate
nonpunitive governmental purpose.
After he was released from solitary confinement, he went to the medical unit and was
examined by Nurse Tracy Law. Though she said that she though his injuries were minor, she
scheduled him for an x-ray two days later. Despite Armalin’s assertion that he had to argue with
her to get the x-ray scheduled and that he wanted it done sooner, based on the facts alleged, it
4

would not be reasonable to infer that her timing was intended to punish him or was otherwise
irrational. Prisoners are “not entitled to demand specific care,” nor are they “entitled to the best
care possible.” Forbes v. Edgar, 112 F.3d 262, 267 (7th Cir. 1997). Armalin argues that she was
unprofessional in the way she worked with him, but a lack of professionalism (while regrettable)
does not state a claim for a constitutional violation.
For these reasons, the court:
(1) GRANTS Alexander Jermaine Armalin leave to proceed against Officer Dean,
Corporal Carmichael, Captain Lee, and Corporal Kurtpatrick in their individual capacities for
compensatory damages for denying him medical treatment on January 14, 2015, in violation of
the Fourteenth Amendment;
(2) GRANTS Alexander Jermaine Armalin leave to proceed against Officer Purdy and
Corporal Carmichael in their individual capacities for compensatory damages for denying him
medical treatment on January 15, 2015, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment;
(3) GRANTS Alexander Jermaine Armalin leave to proceed against Corporal Kurtpatrick
in his individual capacity for compensatory damages for denying him medical treatment on the
day he returned to the Grant County Jail from the Morgan County Jail in violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment;
(4) DISMISSES all other claims;
(5) DISMISSES Grant County Jail, Sheriff Reggie Nevels, Medical Staff Tracey Law,
Morgan County Jail, Jail Commander David Rogers, Medical Staff Racheal, Lt. Kathy Lee,
Sheriff Daryl Himelick, Cpt. Randy Albertson, Cpl. Kirkpatrick, Cpl. Purdy, and Officer
Rumple;
5

(6) DIRECTS the clerk to transmit the summons and USM-285 for Officer Dean,
Corporal Carmichael, Captain Lee, Corporal Kurtpatrick, and Officer Purdy to the United States
Marshals Service along with a copy of the Second Amended Complaint [ECF No. 14] and this
Order;
(7) DIRECTS the United States Marshals Service, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), to
effect service of process on Officer Dean, Corporal Carmichael, Captain Lee, Corporal
Kurtpatrick, and Officer Purdy; and
(8) ORDERS, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), that Officer Dean, Corporal
Carmichael, Captain Lee, Corporal Kurtpatrick, and Officer Purdy respond, as provided for in the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and N.D. Ind. L.R. 10-1(b), only to the claims for which the
plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in this screening order.
SO ORDERED on February 19, 2016.
s/ Theresa L. Springmann
THERESA L. SPRINGMANN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6