Dillion v. Lake County Jail
Filing
7
OPINION AND ORDER: DIRECTING the clerk to place this cause number on a blank Prisoner Complaint 42:1983 form and send it to Robert David Dillion with one summons and one USM-285 form; GRANTING Pla until 1/6/2016, to file an amended complaint; and CAUTIONING Pla that if he does not respond by that deadline, this case will be dismissed without further notice pursuant to 28:1915A because the amended complaint does not state a claim. Signed by Senior Judge James T Moody on 11/20/2015. (lhc)(cc: Forms to Pla)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
ROBERT DAVID DILLION,
Plaintiff,
v.
SHERIFF JOHN BUNCICH,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 2:15 CV 405
OPINION AND ORDER
Robert David Dillion, a pro se prisoner at the Lake County Jail, filed an amended
complaint alleging that he received inadequate medical treatment for his arm. “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 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.
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). “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).
The only defendant named by Dillion is Sheriff John Buncich who is alleged to be
the supervisory official in charge of the jail. Dillion does not allege, and it would not be
plausible to infer, that the Sheriff had any personal involvement with his medical care.
As the court explained to him in its previous order (DE 4), “[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 general respondeat
superior liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609 (7th Cir.
2
2007). That is to say, a supervisor is not responsible in a federal civil rights lawsuit for
the actions or omissions of his employees. Because there is no indication that Sheriff
John Buncich was personally responsible, Dillion has not stated a claim against him.
Nevertheless, there is no indication that Dillion does not know who denied him
medical treatment. Who was it at the jail who personally knew about his broken arm
and refused to permit him to receive medical treatment? Who at the jail does he believe
should have scheduled him for a return visit to the doctor? What medical treatment did
he receive at the jail after he returned from the hospital? Did he receive any medication?
If so, from whom, when, how often? Was he examined by any medical staff at the jail?
Did he ask to see a doctor? For any defendant Dillion names, he needs to explain what
that person knew about his broken arm and what that person did to prevent him from
receiving medical treatment.
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 January 6, 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 because the amended complaint does not state a claim.
SO ORDERED.
Date: November 20, 2015
s/James T. Moody
JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY
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?