Benson v. Allen County Jail et al
OPINION AND ORDER DIRECTING Clerk to place this cause number on a blank Prisoner Complaint form and send it to Pla; GRANTING Pla to and including 3/27/2017, to file an amended complaint; and CAUTIONING Pla that if he does not respond by the deadline, this case will be dismissed as outlined. Signed by Judge William C Lee on 2/28/2017. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(lns)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
CHARLES A. BENSON,
ALLEN COUNTY JAIL, et. al.,
CAUSE NO. 1:16-CV-362 WL
OPINION AND ORDER
Charles A. Benson, a pro se prisoner, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (DE 1.)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review the 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Courts apply the
same standard under Section 1915A as when deciding a motion under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir. 2006). To survive
dismissal, a complaint must state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Bissessur v. Indiana
Univ. Bd. of Trs., 581 F.3d 599, 602-03 (7th Cir. 2009). “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.” Id. at 603. In deciding whether the complaint states
a claim, the court must bear in mind that “[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).
Benson complains about a number of events that took place while he was incarcerated at the
Allen County Jail as a pretrial detainee. Because Benson was a pretrial detainee at the time of these
events, the Fourteenth rather than the Eighth Amendment applies. Lewis v. Downey, 581 F.3d 467,
473 (7th Cir. 2009). The governing standards are functionally equivalent, and “anything that would
violate the Eighth Amendment would also violate the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id. “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). Deprivations must be “unquestioned and serious” and deprive prisoner of “the minimal
civilized measure of life’s necessities.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 349 (1981). Inmates are
entitled to adequate food, clothing, shelter, medical care, bedding, hygiene materials, and sanitation.
Knight v. Wiseman, 590 F.3d 458, 463 (7th Cir. 2009); Gillis v. Litscher, 468 F.3d 488, 493 (7th Cir.
He first alleges that on May 8, 2016, five officers dressed in S.O.R.T. gear removed him
from his cell and placed him in segregation with restrictive conditions. Because Benson is a pretrial
detainee, he may not be punished without due process of law. Bell, 441 U.S. at 520. However, not
every placement of a pre-trial detainee in segregation constitutes punishment, and when done for
legitimate security reasons such placements do not violate due process. Zarnes v. Rhodes, 64 F.3d
285, 291 n.5 (7th Cir. 1995), see also Higgs v. Carver, 286 F.3d 437, 438 (7th Cir. 2002). Benson
does not explain why he was placed in segregation. It may very well be that he was placed there for
a legitimate security reason. Without more, it would not be plausible to infer that he was placed there
for some illegitimate reason.
Next, Benson states that while in segregation, he was unable to take a daily shower, but he
does not say how often he needed to shower, nor why. Neither does he say how often he was able
to shower. Based on this complaint and its attachments, it would not be plausible to infer that he was
permitted to shower less than once per week, see Hardaway v. Meyerhoff, 734 F.3d 740 (7th Cir.
2013), nor that he has any special circumstances which required that he bathe more frequently.
Next, Benson alleges that he was placed in a cell where the lights are left on for 24 hours a
day. He does not explain how many days he spent in that cell, how bright the lights are, nor what
harm was caused by them. Neither does he say whether he is permitted to cover his eyes to block
out the light and help him sleep. Based on the current complaint, the court cannot plausibly infer that
leaving the lights on for an unspecified number of days states a claim. See Mathews v. Raemisch,
513 Fed. Appx. 605 (7th Cir. 2013).
Next, Benson alleges that these same officers came back to his cell dressed in S.O.R.T. gear
on May 13, 2016. While they were there, they verbally harassed him. However, verbal harassment,
though despicable, does not trigger any constitutional protections. See DeWalt v. Carter, 224 F.3d
607, 612 (7th Cir. 2000) (“[S]imple verbal harassment does not constitute cruel and unusual
punishment, deprive a prisoner of a protected liberty interest or deny a prison equal protection of
the laws.”). Benson claims that these officers were aggressive while extracting him from his cell.
He ended up with a broken nose due to being pressed against the cell door. There are no allegations
that the officers intentionally hurt him to serve as some form of punishment. Instead, it appears that
Benson was hurt while being extracted from his cell. “[I]n 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, 576 U.S. __, __; 135 S.Ct. 2466, 2473 (2015)
(quoting Bell, 441 U.S. at 535.). Though the extraction of Benson required the use of force, and
unfortunately resulted in an injury to Benson, this court cannot find that Benson has adequately pled
that the officers used excessive force because there are multiple gaps in Benson’s account. He does
not describe the circumstances that required the S.O.R.T. team to enter his cell to extract him. He
also does not clearly explain what transpired between him and the officers that led the officers to
use force, nor does he explain why he was pushed against the cell door which caused his injuries.
As a final matter, Benson admits that he did not file a grievance at the jail or exhaust his
administrative remedies with respect to these claims before filing suit. (DE 1 at 2.) He claims that
he did not file a grievance because “all that they will do is back each other up its not a real grievance
system in this jail.” (Id.) Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), prisoners are
prohibited from bringing an action in federal court with respect to prison conditions until “such
administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Although the failure
to exhaust is an affirmative defense, dismissal at this stage is appropriate if the defense is
“unmistakable” and “apparent from the complaint itself.” Walker v. Thompson, 288 F.3d 1005, 1010
(7th Cir. 2002); see also Cancer Found., Inc. v. Cerberus Cap. Mgmt., LP, 559 F.3d 671, 674 (7th
Cir. 2009) (dismissal on the basis of an affirmative defense is appropriate when the plaintiff pleads
himself out of court). Benson’s complaint meets this standard.
To satisfy the exhaustion requirement, “a prisoner must file complaints and appeals in the
place, and at the time, the prison’s administrative rules require.” Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d
1022, 1025 (7th Cir. 2002). “[U]nless the prisoner completes the administrative process by following
the rules the state has established for that process, exhaustion has not occurred.” Id. at 1023. Here,
Benson admits that he did not submit a grievance before he filed this complaint. This allegation
makes it appear that there was a grievance process available at the jail, but that Benson opted not
to seek relief through this process.
The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that exhaustion is not optional but is instead a
mandatory prerequisite to filing suit over prison conditions. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85
(2006). Benson does not allege, nor can it reasonably be inferred, that jail staff made the grievance
process unavailable to him by failing to provide the necessary forms or otherwise hindering his
efforts to file a grievance. See Dale v. Lappin, 376 F.3d 652, 656 (7th Cir. 2004). He is required to
follow the grievance process established by the facility. Pozo, 286 F.3d at 1023. If it is true that
Benson has not exhausted his available administrative remedies, Section 1997e(a) requires that this
suit be dismissed without prejudice. See Ford v. Johnson, 362 F.3d 395, 401 (7th Cir. 2004).
Ultimately, while Benson claims that his nose was broken during a cell extraction and he was
placed in unfavorable conditions, the complaint lacks sufficient facts to adequately plead that any
individual violated his constitutional rights. In addition, if Benson did not exhaust his available
administrative remedies, this case cannot proceed until he does. Nevertheless, because this complaint
is vague, Benson will be granted leave to file an amended complaint. See Luevano v. Wal-Mart, 722
F.3d 1014 (7th Cir. 2013). In his amended complaint, he needs to set forth his claims in sufficient
detail and address the deficiencies raised in this order.
For these reasons, the court:
(1) DIRECTS the clerk to place this cause number on a blank Prisoner Complaint form
(INND Rev. 8/16) and send it to Charles A. Benson;
(2) GRANTS Charles A. Benson to and including March 27, 2017, to file an amended
(3) CAUTIONS him that if he does not respond by the deadline, this case will be dismissed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because the current complaint does not state a claim for which relief
can be granted.
ENTERED: February 28, 2017
s/William C. Lee
William C. Lee, Judge
United States District Court
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?