Futch v. Doctor, Nurses John and Jane Doe et al
Filing
35
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 33 MOTION to Amend/Correct 20 Amended Complaint filed by Kenny L Futch. Party T Neff, P Smyth, L Cadema and S Seifeit added. DIRECTS the clerk to file the amended complaint (ECF 33-1);GRANTS Kenny L. Futch leav e to proceed on a claim against Dr. Marandet,Officer Gray, T. Neff, P. Smyth, L. Cadema, and S. Seifeit in their individual capacities for money damages for acting with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment by denying him pain medication and other medical supplies; GRANTS Kenny L. Futch leave to proceed on a claim against Officer Gray in his individual capacity for money damages for violating the Equal Protection Clause by discriminating again st Futch on the basis of his financial status with respect to his property;GRANTS Kenny L. Futch leave to proceed on a claim against Officer Gray inhis individual capacity for money damages for retaliating against Futch in violation of the First Amen dment by confiscating his property; DISMISSES J. Scaife; DISMISSES all other claims; DIRECTS the clerk and the United States Marshals Service to issue and serve process on T. Neff, P. Smyth, L. Cadema, and S. Seifeit at the Indiana Department of Corr ection with a copy of this order and the amended complaint (ECF 33-1) as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); and ORDERS Dr. Marandet, Officer Gray, T. Neff, P. Smyth, L. Cadema, and S.Seifeit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), to respond as provided in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and N.D. Ind. L.R. 10.1, only to the claims for which Kenny L. Futch has been granted leave to proceed in this screening order. Signed by Judge Philip P Simon on 8/14/18. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(mlc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
KENNY L. FUTCH,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAUSE NO.: 3:17-CV-753-PPS-MGG
DOCTOR, NURSES JOHN AND JANE
DOE, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Kenny L. Futch, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a motion for leave to file an
amended complaint. In the interest of justice, I grant Futch leave to amend his
complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Nevertheless, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, I
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).
In the amended complaint, Futch alleges that he has diabetes, sickle cell anemia,
arthritis, high blood pressure, bunions, and skin issues. He further alleges that he was
deprived of pain medication, Ace bandages, knee braces, shoe insoles, lotions, and
supplements, which he received from the medical unit prior to his transfer from the
Westville Correctional Facility. Based on these allegations, I previously allowed Futch
to proceed on an Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference to his serious
medical needs against Officer Gray and Dr. Marandet but dismissed the defendant
nurses because Futch had not identified them. ECF 19 at 3. Futch now identifies the
nurses as T. Neff, P. Smyth, L. Cadema, and S. Seifeit, and his request to add them as
defendants to the medical claim is granted.
Additionally, Futch asserts a claim under the Equal Protection Clause against
Officer Gray, alleging that Officer Gray confiscated and destroyed his belongings,
which included medical devices, but allowed other inmates with money to choose
among their belongings and to decide how their belongings should be disposed. Futch
included these allegations in the previous complaint, and, as explained in the previous
order (ECF 19 at 3), Futch adequately states an equal protection claim against Officer
Gray
Futch also alleges that Officer Gray confiscated his property, including the
medical items described above, upon his arrival at the Miami Correctional Facility in
February 2016 to retaliate against Futch for previous lawsuits and grievances. In the
previous screening order, I dismissed this First Amendment retaliation claim because
Futch did not include allegations to suggest that the confiscation was motivated by First
Amendment activity. ECF 19 at 4. Futch now alleges that Officer Gray read the legal
filings included among Futch’s property. In light of this new allegation, the amended
complaint plausibly alleges a claim of First Amendment retaliation against Officer Gray.
Next, Futch alleges that, four months after he arrived at the Miami Correctional
Facility, he was assigned to the disciplinary unit in retaliation for filing grievances
2
against Miami Correctional Facility staff and that he reported it to J. Scaife, who
acquiesced to the retaliation. In a previous order, I denied leave to proceed on this claim
because I could not conclude that the housing assignment arose from the same
transaction or occurrence as Futch’s other claims. ECF 19 at 5. Though Futch maintains
that this housing assignment was part of a widespread conspiracy of retaliatory
conduct, it involves a different defendant, different instances of First Amendment
activity, a different type of retaliatory conduct, and occurred during a different period
of time. Therefore, I find that the housing claim’s connection to the alleged confiscation
of property and inability to reobtain medical items is too tenuous for the housing claim
to proceed in this case.
Futch further alleges that he was wrongfully deprived of good time credit.
However, “habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for a state prisoner who challenges
the fact or duration of his confinement . . .” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 481 (1994).
Because this claim challenges the duration of Futch’s confinement, it must be asserted in
a habeas corpus proceeding. Therefore, this claim is dismissed.
For these reasons, the court:
(1) GRANTS the motion for leave to amend the complaint (ECF 33);
(2) DIRECTS the clerk to file the amended complaint (ECF 33-1);
(3) GRANTS Kenny L. Futch leave to proceed on a claim against Dr. Marandet,
Officer Gray, T. Neff, P. Smyth, L. Cadema, and S. Seifeit in their individual capacities
for money damages for acting with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs
3
in violation of the Eighth Amendment by denying him pain medication and other
medical supplies;
(4) GRANTS Kenny L. Futch leave to proceed on a claim against Officer Gray in
his individual capacity for money damages for violating the Equal Protection Clause by
discriminating against Futch on the basis of his financial status with respect to his
property;
(5) GRANTS Kenny L. Futch leave to proceed on a claim against Officer Gray in
his individual capacity for money damages for retaliating against Futch in violation of
the First Amendment by confiscating his property;
(6) DISMISSES J. Scaife;
(7) DISMISSES all other claims;
(8) DIRECTS the clerk and the United States Marshals Service to issue and serve
process on T. Neff, P. Smyth, L. Cadema, and S. Seifeit at the Indiana Department of
Correction with a copy of this order and the amended complaint (ECF 33-1) as required
by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); and
(9) ORDERS Dr. Marandet, Officer Gray, T. Neff, P. Smyth, L. Cadema, and S.
Seifeit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), to respond as provided in the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and N.D. Ind. L.R. 10.1, only to the claims for which Kenny L. Futch
has been granted leave to proceed in this screening order.
SO ORDERED on August 14, 2018.
s/ Philip P. Simon
JUDGE
UNITED STATES 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?