Boger v. Doe et al
OPINION AND ORDER: The court DISMISSES Stephen Boger's federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because the amended complaint does not state a federal claim for which relief can be granted, and DISMISSES Stephen Boger's state law claims against his cellmate, Charly John Doe, WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 9/10/2020. (bas)
USDC IN/ND case 3:20-cv-00307-RLM-MGG document 24 filed 09/10/20 page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
CAUSE NO. 3:20-CV-307-RLM-MGG
CHARLEY JHON DOE, et al.,
OPINION AND ORDER
Stephen Boger was an inmate at the Miami Correctional Facility when his
cellmate attacked him on February 12, 2019.1 He has filed an amended
complaint against his cell mate, the Miami Correctional Facility, and the staff
working in his unit on the day of the attack. A filing by an unrepresented party
“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
Mr. Boger alleges essentially the same facts as in the original complaint.
Mr. Boger and his cellmate, a member of the Aryan Brotherhood gang, couldn’t
get along. On February 12, 2019, his cellmate, Charly, attacked him while he
was asleep, beating him and cutting him with a razor blade. Mr. Boger needed
22 stitches after the attack. He reported this to his caseworker, requesting a bed
Mr. Boger now resides at the Putnamville Correctional Facility.
USDC IN/ND case 3:20-cv-00307-RLM-MGG document 24 filed 09/10/20 page 2 of 3
change, but he didn’t get help. Mr. Boger has had trouble with gangs as a result
of his conflict with his cellmate. He believes his Eighth Amendment rights have
been violated and seeks monetary damages.
As explained in an earlier order, Mr. Boger can’t proceed against the Miami
Correctional Facility. It’s a building, not a suable entity. Smith v. Knox County
Jail, 666 F.3d 1037, 1040 (7th Cir. 2012).
Likewise, the court has explained that Mr. Boger can’t proceed against the
staff of B Unit that were working on February 12, 2019, because he hasn’t
identified any staff member by name. Unnamed defendant must be dismissed
because “it is pointless to include lists of anonymous defendants in federal court;
this type of placeholder does not open the door to relation back under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 15, nor can it otherwise help the plaintiff.” Wudtke v. Davel, 128 F.3d
1057, 1060 (7th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted).
The amended complaint, like the original complaint, doesn’t describe any
conduct by staff that suggests that Mr. Boger’s Eighth Amendment rights were
violated. When one inmate attacks another, the Eighth Amendment 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
complaint doesn’t contain facts suggesting that Mr. Boger was attacked by either
his cellmate or the gang members that robbed him due to deliberate indifference
on the part of jail staff.
The only other defendant that Mr. Boger has sued is his cellmate. To the
extent he might have a claim against his cellmate, it’s not a federal claim. If no
USDC IN/ND case 3:20-cv-00307-RLM-MGG document 24 filed 09/10/20 page 3 of 3
federal claim remains, a federal court generally relinquishes jurisdiction over any
state law claims. See Doe-2 v. McLean County Unit Dist. No. 5 Bd. of Dirs., 593
F.3d 507, 513 (7th Cir. 2010) (“Ordinarily, when a district court dismisses the
federal claims conferring original jurisdiction prior to trial, it relinquishes
supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. 1367(c).”).
For the reasons set forth above, the court DISMISSES Stephen Boger’s
federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because the amended complaint
does not state a federal claim for which relief can be granted, and DISMISSES
Stephen Boger’s state law claims against his cellmate, Charly John Doe,
SO ORDERED on September 10, 2020
s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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?