Estep v. Garcia et al
Filing
11
OPINION AND ORDER. Clerk DIRECTED to place this cause number on a blank 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Complaint form and forward it to Plaintiff William Paul Estep along with 3 Summons forms and 3 USM-285 forms. Plaintiff GRANTED until 3/31/2016 to file an Amended Complaint along with the necessary other forms. Plaintiff CAUTIONED if he does not respond by the deadline, this case will be dismissed. Signed by Judge Theresa L Springmann on 2/24/16. (cc: William Paul Estep). (cer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
WILLIAM PAUL ESTEP,
Plaintiff,
v.
SGT. GARCIA, and CAPTAIN LIEWS,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO.: 3:15-CV-574 TLS
OPINION AND ORDER
William Paul Estep, a pro se prisoner, began this case by filing a complaint [ECF No. 1]
that did not state a claim. The Court issued an Order [ECF No. 8] explaining why, and Estep was
granted leave to file an amended complaint pursuant to Luevano v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 722
F.3d 1014 (7th Cir. 2013). In his amended complaint [ECF No. 10], Estep names the same two
defendants, but provides additional factual details about his claims. “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) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Nevertheless, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A, this Court must review the complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief. “In order to state a claim under [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 a plaintiff must allege: (1)
that defendants deprived him of a federal constitutional right; and (2) that the defendants acted
under color of state law.” Savory v. Lyons, 469 F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir. 2006).
Estep alleges that on June 28, 2015, he threatened to commit suicide because Sgt. Garcia
refused to place him in protective custody. As a result, Sgt. Garcia kept him in a segregation cell
overnight. The next morning, he again threatened to commit suicide when Captain Liews refused
to place him in protective custody. As a result, they took him to the infirmary where he tried to
kill himself the next day.
If not placing Estep in protective custody had resulted in him being attacked by other
inmates, then he could have stated a claim by alleging that “deliberate indifference by prison
officials effectively condone[d] the attack by allowing it to happen.” Haley v. Gross, 86 F.3d
630, 640 (7th Cir. 1996). However, Estep was not subsequently attacked by other inmates and
the fear of an attack that does not occur does not state a claim. Doe v. Welborn, 110 F.3d 520,
523–24 (7th Cir. 1997). Instead, he attempted suicide. In suicide cases, “[i]n order to be liable
under the Eighth Amendment, a prison official must be cognizant of the significant likelihood
that an inmate may imminently seek to take his own life and must fail to take reasonable steps to
prevent the inmate from performing this act.” Estate of Novack ex rel. Turbin v. Cty. of Wood,
226 F.3d 525, 529 (7th Cir. 2000). Here, the defendants were cognizant that Estep was
threatening suicide, but they did not ignore him. They took him to the infirmary. Though he
attempted suicide the next day while in the infirmary under the care of medical staff, the decision
by Sgt. Garcia and Captain Liews to take him there was nevertheless a reasonable effort on their
part to prevent him from harming himself. Therefore, Estep has not stated a claim against Sgt.
Garcia or Captain Liews.
Though this amended complaint does not state a claim against these two defendants, it is
possible that he may yet be able to state a claim against one or more other individuals or entities
who did not provide him with mental health treatment or protective custody. Therefore, he will
be granted leave to file an amended complaint if he believes that he can state a claim. See
Luevano v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 722 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir. 2013). If he files an amended
complaint, he needs to clearly name his new defendants. He needs explain how each defendant
2
knew that he needed medical care and/or protective custody. He needs to state what each
defendant did or did not do which makes that defendant liable to him. In addition, he needs to
provide a summons and USM-285 form for each named defendant.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court:
(1) DIRECTS the clerk to place this cause number on a blank 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner
Complaint form and send it to William Paul Estep along with three summons and three USM285 forms;
(2) GRANTS William Paul Estep until March 31, 2016, to file an amended complaint
along with the necessary other forms; and
(3) CAUTIONS William Paul Estep 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 does not
state a claim.
SO ORDERED on February 24, 2016.
s/ Theresa L. Springmann
THERESA L. SPRINGMANN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
3
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?