Ellis v. Pryor et al

Filing 7

OPINION AND ORDER: Clerk DIRECTED to place this case number on a blank Prisoner Complaint form and forward it to Plaintiff Demajio Jerome Ellis. Plaintiff GRANTED until 1/9/2017 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 12/12/16. (cc: Demajio Jerome Ellis with form). (cer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
DEMAJIO JEROME ELLIS,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
SERGEANT MR. PRYOR, et al.,
Defendants.

CAUSE NO. 3:16-CV-620 RL

OPINION AND ORDER
Demajio Jerome Ellis, a

pro se

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
the

complaint

and

dismiss

it

if

prisoner, filed a vague

(DE 1.) The court must review
the

action

is

frivolous

or

malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary
relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. To survive dismissal, the complaint must state a
claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Bissessur v.
Indiana Univ. Bd. of Trs., 581 F.3d 599, 602-03 (7th Cir. 2009). “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.” Id. at 603.
Thus, 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 F.3d 400, 403 (7th Cir. 2010).

-1-

Nevertheless, the court must bear in mind that “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).
Here, Ellis complains about events that occurred on June 10,
2016,while he was an inmate at the Westville Correctional Facility.
Without much detail, he states that Sergeant Flakes sprayed him
with a strong version of pepper spray and Sergeant Pryor deployed
a taser due to his refusal to put his hands through the cuff port
as requested. Ellis alleges these two officers used excessive
force.
The “core requirement” for an excessive force claim is that
the defendant “used force not in a good-faith effort to maintain or
restore discipline, but maliciously and sadistically to cause
harm.” Hendrickson v. Cooper, 589 F.3d 887, 890 (7th Cir. 2009)
(citation omitted). Several factors guide the inquiry of whether an
officer’s use of force was legitimate or malicious, including the
need for an application of force, the amount of force used, and the
extent of the injury suffered by the prisoner. Id.
The court cannot weigh these factors here due to the gaps in
Ellis’s account. It appears that he brings suit against these
officers because he was injured by their actions. However, merely
being injured by an officer does not state a claim for excessive

-2-

force.

Hendrickson, 589 F.3d at 473. He does not explain enough

detail of what transpired between him and these officers that led
to the officers’ use of force.

He does not address whether the use

of the officers’ force was legitimate or whether there was a need
for the officers’ application of force.
extent

of

his

injures.

Without

more

Nor does he describe the
information

about

the

circumstances surrounding his interactions with Sergeant Flakes and
Sergeant Pryor, the court cannot determine whether he states a
plausible excessive force claim.
Because this complaint is vague, Ellis 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, Ellis needs to set
forth his claims against the officers in sufficient detail and
address the deficiencies raised in this order. In the amended
complaint, he should fully 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.
For these reasons, the Court:
(1) DIRECTS the Clerk to place this cause number on a blank
Prisoner Complaint form and send it to Demajio Jerome Ellis;
(2) GRANTS Demajio Jerome Ellis until January 9, 2017, to file
an amended complaint; and
(3) CAUTIONS him that if he does not respond by the deadline,
-3-

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.

DATED: December 12, 2016

/s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United States District Court

-4-