Smith v. Gladieux et al

Filing 11

OPINION AND ORDER: The Court GRANTS Vincent Lee Smith leave to proceed only on his claim against F. Barnett in his individual capacity for money damages for ignoring requests for medical attention on June 8, 2017, in violation of the Fourteenth A mendment; DISMISSES Sheriff David Gladieux and the Allen County Jail; DIRECTS the Clerk of Court and the USMS to issue and serve process on F. Barnett at the Allen County Jail with a copy of this Order and the Complaint 1 as required by 28:1915( d); and ORDERS, pursuant to 42:1997e(g)(2), that F. Barnett respond, as provided for in the Fed.R.Civ.P. and N.D. Ind. L.R. 10.1, only to the claim for which Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in this screening Order. Signed by Chief Judge Theresa L Springmann on 4/17/2018. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(lhc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
VINCENT LEE SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v.
DAVID GLADIEUX, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO.: 1:17-CV-431-TLS

OPINION AND ORDER
On October 13, 2017, Vincent Lee Smith, a pro se prisoner, filed a Complaint [ECF No.
1] against Sheriff David Gladieux, the Allen County Jail, and confinement officer F. Barnett. The
Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis on November 3, 2017 [ECF No. 4].
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) (citation 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 [the] 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).
In this case, the Plaintiff alleges that he slipped and fell due to water on the floor on June
8, 2017. At that time, the Plaintiff claims he could not walk and he requested a wheelchair to go
to the medical unit. Officer Barnett was alerted immediately but told the Plaintiff that if he
wanted to go to the medical unit, he needed to walk. The Plaintiff maintains that he was left on

the floor for two hours. He states that a nurse then arrived and only took his blood pressure and
temperature. As of the date the Complaint was filed, the Plaintiff asserts that he has continued to
suffer back pain due to this fall.
The Plaintiff alleges a claim of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against
all of the Defendants. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, pretrial detainees are entitled to
adequate medical care. Brown v. Budz, 398 F.3d 904, 910 (7th Cir. 2005). To establish liability, a
detainee must satisfy both an objective and subjective component by showing: (1) his medical
need was objectively serious; and (2) the Defendant(s) acted with deliberate indifference to that
medical need. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994); Smego v. Jumper, 707 F. App’x
411, 412 (7th Cir. 2017). A medical need is “serious” if it is one that a physician has diagnosed
as mandating treatment, or one that is so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize
the necessity for a doctor’s attention. Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645, 653 (7th Cir. 2005).
Deliberate indifference means that the Defendant(s) “acted in an intentional or criminally
reckless manner, 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).
Notably, the Defendant does not allege that Sheriff David Gladieux was personally
involved in ignoring the request for medical attention and Ҥ 1983 lawsuits against individuals
require personal involvement in the alleged constitutional deprivation to support a viable claim.”
Palmer v. Marion Cty., 327 F.3d 588, 594 (7th Cir. 2003). Moreover, the Allen County Jail is not
a proper Defendant. Although the Allen County Jail is where these events occurred, the jail is a
building, not a person or even a policy-making unit of government that can be sued pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Sow v. Fortville Police Dep’t, 636 F.3d 293, 300 (7th Cir. 2011).

2 

However, the Plaintiff plausibly alleges a claim of deliberate indifference to his serious medical
needs against Officer F. Barnett.
For these reasons, the Court:
(1) GRANTS Vincent Lee Smith leave to proceed only on his claim against F. Barnett in
his individual capacity for money damages for ignoring requests for medical attention on June 8,
2017, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment;
(2) DISMISSES Sheriff David Gladieux and the Allen County Jail;
(3) DIRECTS the Clerk of Court and the United States Marshals Service to issue and
serve process on F. Barnett at the Allen County Jail with a copy of this Order and the Complaint
[ECF No. 1] as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); and
(4) ORDERS, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), that F. Barnett respond, as provided
for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and N.D. Ind. L.R. 10.1, only to the claim for which
Vincent Lee Smith has been granted leave to proceed in this screening Order.
SO ORDERED on April 17, 2018.
s/ Theresa L. Springmann
CHIEF JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3