Martin v. Superintendent

Filing 78

OPINION AND ORDER re 62 Amended Complaint; The Court GRANTS Kevin Martin leave to proceed on an individual capacity claim for compensatory and punitive damages against Caseworker Sinder for failing to protect him by sharing a request form addresse d to internal affairs with an unknown inmate, knowing the information would motivate the inmate to attack Martin, and resulting in an attack against Martin on April 13, 2016, or April 14, 2016, in violation of the Eighth Amendment; DISMISSES all othe r claims; DIRECTS the Clerk and the United States Marshals Service to issue and serve process on Caseworker Sinder at the Indiana Department of Correction with a copy of this order and the amended complaint (DE # 62) as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1 915(d); and ORDERS, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), that Caseworker Sinder respond, as provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and N.D. Ind. L.R. 10-1(b), only to the claim for which the plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in this screening order. Signed by Senior Judge James T Moody on 5/2/18. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(mlc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
KEVIN L. MARTIN,
Plaintiff,
v.

NO. 3:16 CV 357

CASEWORK SINDER,
Defendant.
OPINION and ORDER
Kevin Martin, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed an amended complaint alleging
that Caseworker Sinder failed to protect him from an attack by a fellow inmate on either
April 13, 2016, or April 14, 2016. (DE # 62.) “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 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.
“In order to state a claim under § 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).
On April 4, 2016, Martin gave Sinder a request form asking to speak to internal
affairs about an ongoing investigation into trafficking at the prison. Martin alleges that

Sinder then provided that request form to an unknown inmate, knowing that it would
motivate an attack. Several days later, on April 13, 2016, or April 14, 2016, the unknown
inmate approached Martin in his cell, holding the request form addressed to internal
affairs. Martin and the inmate argued. The unidentified inmate left the area but
returned with several boxes and gas. He then lit a fire inside Martin’s cell.
When one inmate attacks another inmate, the Constitution is violated only if
“deliberate indifference by prison officials effectively condones the attack by allowing it
to happen.” Haley v. Gross, 86 F.3d 630, 640 (7th Cir. 1996). The defendant “must both be
aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious
harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837
(1994). Here, Martin has stated a claim against Sinder because he has alleged facts from
which it can be plausibly inferred that Sinder shared Martin’s request form with the
unknown inmate and that Sinder knew that giving this information to the unknown
inmate would motivate the inmate to attack Martin.
For these reasons, the court:
(1) GRANTS Kevin Martin leave to proceed on an individual capacity claim for
compensatory and punitive damages against Caseworker Sinder for failing to protect
him by sharing a request form addressed to internal affairs with an unknown inmate,
knowing the information would motivate the inmate to attack Martin, and resulting in
an attack against Martin on April 13, 2016, or April 14, 2016, in violation of the Eighth
Amendment;
(2) DISMISSES all other claims;
2

(3) DIRECTS the Clerk and the United States Marshals Service to issue and serve
process on Caseworker Sinder at the Indiana Department of Correction with a copy of
this order and the amended complaint (DE # 62) as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); and
(4) ORDERS, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), that Caseworker Sinder
respond, as provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and N.D. Ind. L.R. 101(b), only to the claim for which the plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in this
screening order.
SO ORDERED.
Date: May 2, 2018
s/James T. Moody
JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3