Steward v. Commissioner et al

Filing 16

OPINION AND ORDER: The court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the claim regarding slipping and falling on May 6, 2023; GRANTS Ronald Steward until 04/11/2025, to file an amended complaint; and CAUTIONS Ronald Steward if he does not respond by the deadline, this case will be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A without further notice because the current complaint does not state a claim for which relief can be granted. Signed by Judge Joseph S Van Bokkelen on 03/10/2025. (jdb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
RONALD STEWARD,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER, WARDEN, CUSTODY
STAFF, and JOHNSON,
Defendants.

)
)
)
) CAUSE NO.: 3:24-CV-520-JVB-APR
)
)
)
)

OPINION AND ORDER
Ronald Steward, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a complaint. [DE 1]. Most of the
complaint discusses issues regarding his physical safety when he was first transferred to Westville
Correctional Facility in 2022, but he adds a paragraph about an unrelated claim in which he slipped
and fell in his housing unit on May 6, 2023. These two claims are not related and cannot be brought
in the same lawsuit. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (“[U]nrelated claims
against different defendants belong in different suits.”). When a plaintiff files a complaint with
unrelated or mis-joined claims, the Court can “solve the problem by [picking a claim and]
dismissing the excess defendants under Fed. R. Civ. P. 21.” Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources,
Inc., 689 F.3d 680, 683 (7th Cir. 2012). Here, because the two-year statute of limitations would
preclude Steward from refiling the first claim from 2022, the Court will screen that one and dismiss
without prejudice the claim regarding slipping and falling in 2023. Steward may decide whether
he wishes to file a separate complaint raising that claim, though he should be mindful of the twoyear statute of limitations that applies to claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in Indiana. See Snodderly
v. R.U.F.F. Drug Enforcement Task Force, 239 F.3d 892, 894 (7th Cir. 2001).
In looking at the remaining claim, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court must review the
merits of a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a
1

claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief. “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).
Steward alleges that when he arrived at Westville on November 29, 2022, from the
Reception Diagnostic Center, he was assigned to Housing Unit 7 Dorm. Steward told custody staff
that he would encounter safety issues in that unit because he knew there were individuals there
who wished him physical harm. He was not moved and within two hours, he alleges he was stabbed
numerous times.
Custody then reassigned him to Housing Unit 3 Dorm. He again warned custody of a
potential risk to his physical safety. But alleges he was forced to live there anyway and was
attacked again.
At this point, Steward alleges Sergeant Johnson and other custody staff placed him in a
cage measuring 3’ x 5’ for two days with little to no food or bathroom access, and he had problems
sleeping.
Steward does not state a claim against any defendant for failing to protect him from being
attacked. The Eighth Amendment imposes a duty on prison officials “to take reasonable measures
to guarantee the safety of inmates.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). “[P]rison
officials have a duty to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners.” Id. at 833.
That said, not every such violent altercation violates the Constitution. Hunter v. Mueske, 73 F.4th
561, 565 (7th Cir. 2023). “[P]risons are dangerous places,” as “[i]nmates get there by violent acts,
and many prisoners have a propensity to commit more.” Grieveson v. Anderson, 538 F.3d 763,

2

777 (7th Cir. 2008). Thus, “only deliberate indifference to an inmate’s wellbeing is actionable: a
prison official is liable for failing to protect an inmate from another prisoner only if the official
knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Hunter, 73 F.4th at 565
(internal quotation marks, brackets, and citations omitted).
Accordingly, when an inmate is attacked by another inmate, 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 defendant “must
both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious
harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. “[A] complaint that
identifies a specific, credible, and imminent risk of serious harm and identifies the prospective
assailant typically will support an inference that the official to whom the complaint was
communicated had actual knowledge of the risk.” Gevas v. McLaughlin, 798 F.3d 475, 481 (7th
Cir. 2015). A failure-to-protect claim under the Eighth Amendment can also be based on a
substantial risk of harm due to the specific characteristics of the victim or the assailant. See Brown
v. Budz, 398 F.3d 904, 914 (7th Cir. 2005). General requests for help, expressions of fear, and even
prior attacks are insufficient to alert guards to the need for action. Klebanowski v. Sheahan, 540
F.3d 633, 639–40 (7th Cir. 2008).
Here, Steward does not explain the nature of the threat to him, so there is no basis to infer
that any defendant was aware of a specific, credible threat to him. Additionally, he does not
identify a specific defendant who could be held responsible. Liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
requires personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violation. See Mitchell v. Kallas, 895
F.3d 492, 498 (7th Cir. 2018). Steward names both the Commissioner of the Indiana Department
of Correction and the Warden of Westville as defendants, but as supervisory officials they are not

3

likely to be personally involved in his particular placement at the facility or aware of any threat to
him. They cannot be held liable solely on the basis of their subordinates’ actions. Burks v.
Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592, 596 (7th Cir. 2009) (“[P]ublic employees are responsible for their own
misdeeds but not for anyone else’s.”). Similarly, naming “custody staff” as defendants is not
sufficiently specific in order for the Court to determine which of them would have the necessary
knowledge of a risk to Steward to be held liable for failing to protect him.
Finally, Steward does not state a claim against Sergeant Johnson for placing him in a small
cell for two days. The Eighth Amendment prohibits conditions of confinement that deny inmates
“the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.” Townsend v. Fuchs, 522 F.3d 765, 773 (7th
Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). To state a claim under the Eighth Amendment, the prisoner must
show both that the deprivation was sufficiently serious and that the defendant acted with deliberate
indifference to the inmate’s health or safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. In looking at whether a
condition constitutes a sufficiently serious deprivation, “a court must assess the amount and
duration of the deprivation.” Reed v. McBride, 178 F.3d 849, 853 (7th Cir. 1999). Steward endured
the described conditions for only two days and does not provide detail about the extent of the food,
bathroom, or sleep issues, nor does he say what effect that had on him. This does not state a claim.
This complaint does not state a claim for which relief can be granted. If Steward believes
he can state a claim based on (and consistent with) the events described in this complaint, he may
file an amended complaint because “[t]he usual standard in civil cases is to allow defective
pleadings to be corrected, especially in early stages, at least where amendment would not be futile.”
Abu-Shawish v. United States, 898 F.3d 726, 738 (7th Cir. 2018). To file an amended complaint,
he needs to write this cause number on a Pro Se 14 (INND Rev. 2/20) Prisoner Complaint form

4

which is available from his law library. He needs to write the word “Amended” on the first page
above the title “Prisoner Complaint” and send it to the Court after he properly completes the form.
For these reasons, the court:
(1) DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the claim regarding slipping and falling on
May 6, 2023;
(2) GRANTS Ronald Steward until April 11, 2025, to file an amended complaint; and
(3) CAUTIONS Ronald Steward if he does not respond by the deadline, this case will be
dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A without further notice because the current complaint does not
state a claim for which relief can be granted.
SO ORDERED on March 10, 2025.

s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen
JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5