Wagoner v. Elkhart County Correctional Center Medical Department et al

Filing 4

OPINION AND ORDER: DISMISSING CASE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because it doesn't state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 12/4/2017. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(lhc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
ROBERT JOSEPH WAGONER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ELKHART COUNTY
CORRECTIONAL CENTER
MEDICAL DEPARTMENT, et. al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 3:17-CV-900 RLM

OPINION AND ORDER
Robert Joseph Wagoner, a prisoner representing himself, sues the Elkhart
County Correctional Center’s Medical Department and all its employees due to
their practice of charging inmates for medical care. The court must review 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (b). Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides for the dismissal of a complaint, or any
portion of a complaint, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. Courts apply the same standard under § 1915A as when addressing a
motion under Rule 12(b)(6). Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir.
2006). To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must state
a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Bissessur v. Indiana Univ. Bd. of

1

Trs., 581 F.3d 599, 602-603 (7th Cir. 2009). In deciding whether the complaint
states a claim, the court must bear in mind that “[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). 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).
Mr. Wagoner complains that he is charged a $15 co-pay for each medical
appointment at the Elkhart County Correctional Center. Mr. Wagoner argues that
he shouldn’t be charged for medical care because he is incarcerated. Mr.
Wagoner’s complaint does not state a claim: the Constitution doesn’t require free
medical care. See City of Revere v. Mass. Gen. Hosp., 463 U.S. 239, 245 n.7
(1983); Poole v. Isaacs, 703 F.3d 1024, 1027 (7th Cir. 2012). Though it is usually
necessary “to give pro se litigants one opportunity to amend after dismissing a
complaint[,] that’ s unnecessary where, as here, it is certain from the face of the
complaint that any amendment would be futile or otherwise unwarranted.”
Carpenter v. PNC Bank, Nat. Ass’ n, No. 633 Fed. Appx. 346, 348 (7th Cir. Feb.
3, 2016) (quotation marks omitted). See Luevano v. Wal-Mart, 722 F.3d 1014 (7th
Cir. 2013) and Hukic v. Aurora Loan Servs., 588 F.3d 420, 432 (7th Cir. 2009)

2

(“[C]ourts

have broad discretion to deny leave to amend where . . . the

amendment would be futile.”).
For these reasons, the court DISMISSES this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A because it doesn’t state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: December 4 , 2017
/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr.
Judge,
United States District Court

3