Watson v. Simpson

Filing 4

OPINION AND ORDER dismissing case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A. ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Allen Sharp on 2/9/06. (kds)

Watson v. Simpson

Doc. 4

case 3:06-cv-00098-AS-CAN

document 4

filed 02/09/2006

page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT N O R T H E R N DISTRICT OF INDIANA S O U T H BEND DIVISION J O H N H. WATSON, P l a i n t i f f, v. L A R R Y SIMPSON, D e fe n d a n t . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C A U S E NO. 3:06-CV-098 AS

O P IN IO N AND ORDER J o h n H. Watson, a pro se prisoner, submitted a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1 9 8 3. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review the merits of a prisoner co m p lain t and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim u p o n which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) provides for the dismissal of a co m p la in t, or any portion of a complaint, for failure to state a claim upon which relief ca n be granted. Courts apply the same standard under § 1915A as when addressing a motion under Rule 12(b)(6). Weiss v. Colley, 230 F.3d 1027 (7th Cir. 2000). A claim may be dismissed only if it appears beyond doubt that the p lain tiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would e n title him to relief. Allegations of a pro se complaint are held to less strin ge n t standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. A cc or d in gly, pro se complaints are liberally construed. In order to state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the S u pr e m e Court requires only two elements: First, the plaintiff must a lle ge that some person has deprived him of a federal right. Second, he m u s t allege that the person who has deprived him of the right acted u n d e r color of state law. These elements may be put forth in a short an d plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to re lie f. FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). In reviewing the complaint on a motion to d is m is s, no more is required from plaintiff's allegations of intent than

Dockets.Justia.com

case 3:06-cv-00098-AS-CAN

document 4

filed 02/09/2006

page 2 of 2

w h a t would satisfy Rule 8's notice pleading minimum and Rule 9(b)'s r e q u ir e m e n t that motive and intent be pleaded generally.

A lv ar ad o v. Litscher, 267 F.3d 648, 651 (7th Cir. 2001) (citations, quotation marks a n d ellipsis omitted). M r . Watson alleges that he is subjected to "wanton and unnecessary verbal a b u se ." Complaint at 3, docket # 1. Mr. Watson alleges, in part, that he has been ca lle d a girl, told that he is being restrained and watched 24/7, and had it suggested th at he should obtain a coat by stealing it. Mr. Watson alleges that the Eighth A m e n d m e n t prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment "applies to wanton and u n n e c e s sa r y verbal abuse as well as physical abuse." Complaint at 4, docket # 1. Mr. W a tso n is incorrect. These comments might be unprofessional and they might even b e penologically ineffective, but they do not violate Mr. Watson's constitutional rig h ts. See DeWalt v. Carter, 224 F.3d 607, 612 (7th Cir. 2000) ("Standing alone, sim ple verbal harassment does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, d e p r iv e a prisoner of a protected liberty interest or deny a prisoner equal protection of the laws.") For the foregoing reasons, this case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1 9 1 5 A . IT IS SO ORDERED. E N T E R E D : February 9 , 2006

s/Allen Sharp ALLEN SHARP, JUDGE U N IT E D STATES DISTRICT COURT

2