Henderson v. St Joseph County Jail et al
Filing
2
OPINION AND ORDER: The court DIRECTS the clerk to place this cause number on a blank prisoner Complaint 42 U.S.C. § 1983 packet and send it to Marcus Henderson; GRANTS Marcus Henderson to and including 7/20/2015, to resolve his filing fee status and file an amended complaint; and CAUTIONS him 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 for which relief can be granted. Signed by Judge Jon E DeGuilio on 6/22/2015. (cc: Henderson)(rmc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
MARCUS HENDERSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ST. JOSEPH COUNTY JAIL, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO. 3:15-CV-242 JD
OPINION AND ORDER
Marcus Henderson, a pro se prisoner, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (DE 1.) “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, “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 citations omitted).
“Threadbare recitals of the elements of the cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice.” Id. at 678. 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).
Henderson is currently incarcerated at the Pact Bradley House in Michigan City, Indiana.
Henderson alleges that sometime while incarcerated at the St. Joseph County Jail, he expressed
concern about being housed in a dangerous pod and requested to be moved to a safer location within
the jail. However, his request was denied and he was then assaulted by fellow inmates two months
later. Under the Eighth Amendment, correctional officials have a constitutional duty to protect
inmates “from violence at the hand of other inmates.” Grieveson v. Anderson, 538 F.3d 763, 777
(7th Cir. 2008). However, a failure to protect claim cannot be predicated “merely on knowledge
of general risks of violence in a detention facility.” Brown v. Budz, 398 F.3d 904, 913 (7th Cir.
2005). Here, Henderson makes only general assertions that he believed his housing assignment
posed a threat to him. He does not state whether he faced any specific threat, if he communicated
that threat to anyone, or why his request was denied. He also has not stated when any of these
events occurred.
Next, Henderson claims that he was denied access to the South Bend Police Department and
his attorney following the assault. He requested the South Bend Police be contacted so that he could
make a police report and have pictures taken of his injuries. Nevertheless, Henderson was denied
access to the South Bend Police and his attorney until his injuries healed. Despite these allegations,
he fails to clearly explain this incident in sufficient detail, too. It is unclear who denied him this
access, why he was denied this access, or when he was denied this access. It is also unclear whether
this delay resulted in Henderson suffering any harm. While Henderson sues a number of “John Doe”
defendants, it is unknown who these individuals are and how they were involved in the violation of
his rights. Without these details, it is not possible to discern whether Henderson has stated a
plausible claim against any defendant.
Because this complaint is vague, Henderson will be granted leave to file an amended
complaint. See Luevano v. Wal-Mart, 722 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir. 2013). In his amended complaint,
he needs to sets forth his claims in sufficient detail and address the deficiencies raised in this order.
In the amended complaint, he should explain in his own words what happened, when it happened,
where it happened, and who was involved. He may attach any documentation he has in his
possession or can obtain related to his claims.
As a final matter, Henderson did not pay the filing fee or submit an in forma pauperis
petition accompanied by his trust fund ledgers for the past six months as required by 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(2). His case cannot be screened or otherwise allowed to proceed until he resolves his fee
status.
For these reasons, the court:
(1) DIRECTS the clerk to place this cause number on a blank prisoner Complaint 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 packet and send it to Marcus Henderson;
(2) GRANTS Marcus Henderson to and including July 20, 2015, to resolve his filing fee
status and file an amended complaint; and
(3) CAUTIONS him 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 for which relief
can be granted.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: June 22, 2015
/s/ JON E. DEGUILIO
Judge
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?