Dillion v. Lake County Jail

Filing 4

ORDER: DIRECTS the clerk to place this cause number on a blank Prisoner Complaint 42 U.S.C. § 1983 form and send it to Robert David Dillion with one summons and one USM-285 form; GRANTS Robert David Dillion until December 3, 2015, to file an ame nded complaint; and CAUTIONS Robert David Dillion that if he does not respond by that deadline, this case will be dismissed without further notice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A. Signed by Senior Judge James T Moody on 11/2/2015. (cc: Dillion with forms)(rmn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
ROBERT DAVID DILLION,
Plaintiff,
v.
LAKE COUNTY JAIL,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:15 CV 405

OPINION AND ORDER
Robert David Dillion, a pro se prisoner, filed a complaint alleging that he is not
receiving proper medical treatment for his broken arm at the Lake County Jail. “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). Nevertheless, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review
the merits of a prisoner complaint.
The only defendant named in the complaint is the Lake County Jail. However,
the jail is a building. It is not a suable entity. Smith v. Knox County Jail, 666 F.3d 1037,
1040 (7th Cir. 2012). Therefore this complaint does not state a claim.
Dillion does not name who at the jail knows that he needs medical treatment and
is refusing to provide it to him. “A plaintiff bringing a civil rights action must prove
that the defendant personally participated in or caused the unconstitutional actions.”
Grieveson v. Anderson, 538 F.3d 763, 776 (7th Cir. 2008). “[P]ublic employees are

responsible for their own misdeeds but not for anyone else’s.” Burks v. Raemisch, 555
F.3d 592, 596 (7th Cir. 2009).
There is no indication that Dillion does not know who is denying him medical
treatment. Rather, it appears that he simply did not know that in a § 1983 lawsuit, he
needed to name that person in his/her individual capacity. Therefore he will be
permitted to file an amended complaint. See Luevano v. Wal-Mart, 722 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir.
2013).
For these reasons, the court:
(1) DIRECTS the clerk to place this cause number on a blank Prisoner Complaint
42 U.S.C. § 1983 form and send it to Robert David Dillion with one summons and one
USM-285 form;
(2) GRANTS Robert David Dillion until December 3, 2015, to file an amended
complaint; and
(3) CAUTIONS Robert David Dillion that if he does not respond by that
deadline, this case will be dismissed without further notice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A.

SO ORDERED.
Date: November 2, 2015
s/James T. Moody
JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT