Adkins v. Elkhart County Jail et al

Filing 4

OPINION AND ORDER: DIRECTING the clerk to place this cause number on a blank prisoner Complaint 42:1983 form, and send it to Marvin Adkins along with 2 blank summons forms and 1 blank USM-285 form; GRANTING Pla to and including 7/6/2015, to file an amended complaint; and CAUTIONING him that if he does not respond by the deadline, this case will be dismissed pursuant to 28:1915A because the current complaint does not state a claim for which relief can be granted. Signed by Judge Joseph S Van Bokkelen on 6/4/2015. (lhc)(cc: Forms to Pla)

United States District Court
Northern District of Indiana
MARVIN ADKINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
ELKHART COUNTY JAIL, et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 3:15-CV-213 JVB

OPINION AND ORDER
Marvin Adkins, a pro se prisoner, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (DE 2.)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review 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. Courts apply the same standard
under § 1915A as when addressing a motion to dismiss under FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
12(b)(6). Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir. 2006). Under federal pleading
standards,
a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 672 (2009) (quotation marks and internal citations omitted).
Furthermore, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of the cause of action, supported by mere
conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. at 678. To survive dismissal, the 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
-1-

F.3d 400, 403 (7th Cir. 2010) (emphasis in original).
Adkins is currently an inmate at the Westville Correctional Facility (“Westville”). He alleges
that he received deficient medical care while an inmate at the Elkhart County Jail. He claims that
he injured his leg and was then examined by a nurse, who diagnosed his injury as a sprain, applied
ice for fifteen minutes and released him back to his cell. After he returned to his cell, Adkins’ leg
became swollen and turned the color purple. An x-ray was not ordered and Adkins was not given
crutches or any other walking aid. Instead, he was prescribed ibuprofen and naproxin. A few days
later, Adkins was transferred to the Reception Diagnostic Center (“RDC”) within the Indiana
Department of Corrections. At RDC, correctional officials noticed Adkins’ leg was injured. X-rays
were performed which showed that his fibula was fractured.
Adkins has brought suit for money damages against the Elkhart County Jail and Elkhart
County Sheriff Brad Rogers alleging a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. In evaluating an
Eighth Amendment claim, the court is mindful that inmates are entitled to adequate medical care.
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). For a medical professional to be held liable for
deliberate indifference, he or she must make a decision that represents “such a substantial departure
from accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards, as to demonstrate that the person
responsible actually did not base the decision on such a judgment.” Jackson v. Kotter, 541 F.3d 688,
697 (7th Cir. 2008).
Neither the Elkhart County Jail nor Sheriff Rogers is a proper defendant here. Though the
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 Title 42 U.S.C. section 1983. See Sow v. Fortville Police
Dep’t, 636 F.3d 293, 300 (7th Cir. 2011). In addition, because there is no general respondeat

-2-

superior liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Sheriff Rogers cannot be held liable simply because he
oversees operations at the jail or supervises other correctional officers or medical staff. Burks,555
F.3d at 594. Accordingly, Sheriff Rogers will be dismissed as a defendant.
Though Adkins’ current complaint does not plausibly state a claim, it is not possible to
definitively say that he could not do so. Accordingly, Adkins will be granted leave to file an
amended complaint if he believes that he can present the facts necessary to state a claim against a
proper defendant. See Luevano v. Wal-Mart, 722 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir. 2013). If he files an amended
complaint, he needs to identify the defendant(s) who are personally responsible for the conditions
of which he is complaining. “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). In the amended complaint, he should explain in his own words what
happened, when it happened, where it happened, and who was involved. He must clearly explain
how the defendant(s) violated his rights, providing as much detail as possible. He may attach any
documentation he has in his possession or can obtain related to his claims.
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 Marvin Adkins along with 2 blank summons forms and 1 blank
USM-285 form;
(2) GRANTS Marvin Adkins to and including July 6, 2015, to file an amended complaint;
and
(3) CAUTIONS Marvin Adkins that if he does not respond by the deadline, this case will
be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because the current complaint does not state a claim

-3-

for which relief can be granted.
SO ORDERED on June 4, 2015.
s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen
Joseph S. Van Bokkelen
United States District Judge
Hammond Division

-4-