Hudson v. Miami Correctional Facility et al

Filing 9

OPINION AND ORDER: The Court GRANTS Joel Hudson leave to proceed against Mrs. Baker in her individual capacity for compensatory and punitive damages for denying him necessary medical care on March 3, 2021, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, D ISMISSES all other claims, DISMISSES Dr. Myers and Miami Correctional Facility, DIRECTS the clerk to request Waiver of Service from (and if necessary, the United States Marshals Service to serve process on) Mrs. Baker at the Indiana Department of Correction, with a copy of this order and the complaint ECF 1 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), ORDERS the Indiana Department of Correction to provide the full name, date of birth, and last known home address of the defendant if she doesnot waive s ervice if it has such information and ORDERS, under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), Mrs. Baker to 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 Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 11/18/21. (Copy mailed to pro se party). (nal)

USDC IN/ND case 3:21-cv-00314-RLM-MGG document 9 filed 11/18/21 page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
JOEL HUDSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

CAUSE NO. 3:21-CV-314-RLM-MGG

MIAMI CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, et
al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Joel Hudson, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a complaint against three
defendants. 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. “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).
Mr. Hudson alleges that, on March 3, 2021, his blood sugar had dropped
so low that he was on the floor under his bunk unresponsive fighting for his life.
He says he was suffocating on his vomit and hoping someone would come by his
room because he couldn’t move to push the call button. Mr. Hudson states that
at about 3:00 a.m., as Mrs. Baker, a correctional officer, approached his room to
do the count, she saw him lying on the floor. He asserts she flashed a light on

USDC IN/ND case 3:21-cv-00314-RLM-MGG document 9 filed 11/18/21 page 2 of 4

his face, said he was okay, and then walked away. Mr. Hudson states that he
couldn’t respond to her when she flashed the light on him, and he was left there
to die. He was on the floor for another two hours until Mrs. Baker returned with
another officer, who was helping her pass out breakfast trays. When the other
officer saw Mr. Hudson, he called a signal. Mr. Hudson alleges that Mrs. Baker
said she “[did not] have time for this” and left his room to finish passing out
breakfast trays. Mrs. Baker later returned to Mr. Hudson’s room but only to act
like she was helping with the situation until the nurse arrived. Mr. Hudson says
that, as a result of his low blood sugar, he fell out of the top bunk, fractured his
nose, broke a tooth, and ended up in the hospital because he was given too much
medicine.
Because Mr. Hudson is a pretrial detainee, his rights arise under the
Fourteenth Amendment. Miranda v. Cty. of Lake, 900 F.3d 335, 352 (7th Cir.
2018) (citing Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015)). “[M]edical-care
claims brought by pretrial detainees under the Fourteenth Amendment are
subject only to the objective unreasonableness inquiry identified in Kingsley. Id.
The inquiry for assessing a due process challenge to a pretrial detainee’s medical
care entails two steps. Id. at 353. To state a claim under the Fourteenth
Amendment, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant acted “with purposeful,
knowing, or reckless disregard of the consequences” of his actions. Id. at 345.
He must also allege that the medical care he received, or the denial of that
medical care, was “objectively unreasonable.” Id. (emphasis omitted). Giving Mr.

2

USDC IN/ND case 3:21-cv-00314-RLM-MGG document 9 filed 11/18/21 page 3 of 4

Hudson the inferences to which he is entitled at this stage of the case, he has
alleged a plausible Fourteenth Amendment claim against Mrs. Baker.
Mr. Hudson also sued Dr. Myers. Other than simply listing him as a
defendant in the caption of his case, he never mentions him in the body of his
complaint. Therefore, he can’t proceed against Dr. Myers.
Mr. Hudson can’t proceed against Miami Correctional Facility because it
is a building and not a suable entity. Smith v. Knox County Jail, 666 F.3d 1037,
1040 (7th Cir. 2012).
For these reasons, the court:
(1) GRANTS Joel Hudson leave to proceed against Mrs. Baker in her
individual capacity for compensatory and punitive damages for denying him
necessary medical care on March 3, 2021, in violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment;
(2) DISMISSES all other claims;
(3) DISMISSES Dr. Myers and Miami Correctional Facility;
(4) DIRECTS the clerk to request Waiver of Service from (and if necessary,
the United States Marshals Service to serve process on) Mrs. Baker at the
Indiana Department of Correction, with a copy of this order and the complaint
(ECF 1), under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d);
(5) ORDERS the Indiana Department of Correction to provide the full
name, date of birth, and last known home address of the defendant if she does
not waive service if it has such information; and

3

USDC IN/ND case 3:21-cv-00314-RLM-MGG document 9 filed 11/18/21 page 4 of 4

(6) ORDERS, under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), Mrs. Baker to 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.
SO ORDERED on November 18, 2021
s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr.
JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4