Berry v. Mize et al
Filing
6
OPINION AND ORDER re 2 PRO SE COMPLAINT filed by Plaintiff JaVon Crockett Berry. Clerk DIRECTED to place this case number on a blank 42:1983 Prisoner Complaint form and forward it to Plaintiff. Plaintiff GRANTED until 1/21/2016 to file an Amended Complaint. Plaintiff CAUTIONED if he does not respond by the deadline this case will be dismissed. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 12/1/15. (cc: JaVon Crockett Berry with form). (cer)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
JaVON CROCKETT BERRY,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
vs.
BRENT MIZE, et al.,
Defendants.
CAUSE NO. 3:15-CV-556
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a complaint filed pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by JaVon Crockett Berry, a pro se prisoner, on
November 24, 2015. For the reasons set forth below, 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 JaVon Crockett
Berry; (2) GRANTS JaVon Crockett Berry until January 21, 2016, to
file an amended complaint; and (3) CAUTIONS JaVon Crockett Berry
that if he does not respond by that deadline, this case will be
dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because the current
complaint (DE 2) does not state a claim.
DISCUSSION
Berry filed a complaint naming eleven defendants. “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.
In the complaint, Berry describes a series of events starting
on October 6, 2009, at the Pendleton Correctional Facility and
ending on October 3, 2013, at the Indiana State Prison. It is
unclear how these events (which involve different defendants, on
different dates, in different locations, for different claims) are
sufficiently related to be brought in a single lawsuit. “Unrelated
claims against different defendants belong in different suits . .
..” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). The
complaint is vague in that it omits many details and dates. Indeed,
the factual description of the claims only contains the names of
four of the defendants. Despite these defects, it is clear that the
last event described in the complaint occurred on October 3, 2013.
However, “Indiana’s two-year statute of limitations . . . is
applicable to all causes of action brought in Indiana under 42
U.S.C. § 1983.” Snodderly v. R.U.F.F. Drug Enforcement Task Force,
239 F.3d 892, 894 (7th Cir. 2001). Because Berry did not sign the
complaint for this case until November 23, 2015, all of the claims
arising out of events described in this complaint are barred by the
statute of limitations.
-2-
Nevertheless, because the complaint omits many dates and does
not describe what seven of the defendants did, it is possible that
Berry may have a claim against one of them which arose within the
past two years. If so, he can file an amended complaint. See
Luevano v. Wal-Mart, 722 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir. 2013). If he files an
amended complaint, he must follow the instructions on the complaint
form
which
instruct
him
to
“Write
a
new
paragraph
for
each
violation. Name each defendant involved in that violation. Number
your paragraphs.” DE 2 at 3. He also needs to explain when each
event occurred and what each defendant did (or did not do) which
makes that defendant liable to him. He needs to provide the facts
on which his claims are based and he needs to describe what
injuries he has suffered as a result of each claim.
[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the “grounds” of
his “entitlement to relief” requires more than labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements
of a cause of action will not do. 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).
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quotation
marks, ellipsis, citations and footnote omitted).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, 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 JaVon Crockett Berry; (2) GRANTS
-3-
JaVon Crockett Berry until January 21, 2016, to file an amended
complaint; and (3) CAUTIONS JaVon Crockett Berry that if he does
not respond by that deadline, this case will be dismissed pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because the current complaint (DE 2) does not
state a claim.
DATED: December 1, 2015
/s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United State District Court
-4-
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?