Watson v. Simpson
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
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
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
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?