Savage v. VanHorn

Filing 8

OPINION AND ORDER: STRIKING 1 COMPLAINT against ANDREW D. VANHORN, filed by BRANDON SAVAGE; TAKING UNDER ADVISEMENT 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, filed by Pla BRANDON SAVAGE; GRANTING Pla to and including 6/17/2015, to file an amended complaint; CAUTIONING Pla that if he does not respond by the deadline, this case will be dismissed without further notice; and DENYING 3 MOTION FOR WITNESS, filed by Pla BRANDON SAVAGE. Signed by Judge Jon E DeGuilio on 5/18/2015. (lhc)(cc: Pla)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION AT LAFAYETTE
BRANDON SAVAGE,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW D. VANHORN,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:15-CV-044 JD

OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Brandon Savage filed a pro se complaint asserting a civil rights claim against
Andrew D. VanHorn. [DE 1]. Plaintiff filed his complaint in the Southern District of Indiana,
which transferred the action to this Court because the underlying events took place in Lafayette,
which is located in the Northern District of Indiana. Plaintiff also filed a petition for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. [DE 2]. While the Plaintiff meets the financial requirements to
proceed without prepaying the filing fee, the Court also has an obligation under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2) to dismiss a complaint if the Court determines that it “fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted.” Under federal pleading standards:
[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotation marks and internal citations omitted).
When a complaint is confusing or lacking in necessary detail, the district court is “within its
rights” to dismiss the complaint with leave to replead. Loubser v. Thacker, 440 F.3d 439, 443
(7th Cir. 2006).

Mr. Savage appears to bring this action based on an assault he suffered by the Defendant,
who was a fellow patient in a psychiatric hospital. Mr. Savage filled out his complaint in a form
for civil rights claims, but to state a claim for a civil rights violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the
defendant must have acted under color of state law. Mr. Savage’s complaint does not suggest
that the Defendant, Andrew D. VanHorn, was acting under state law, though; it appears that Mr.
VanHorn merely happened to be a patient in the same hospital as Mr. Savage, not a police officer
or some other individual acting under color of law. Accordingly, Mr. Savage’s complaint fails to
state a claim over which this Court has jurisdiction.
That is not to say that Mr. Savage has no legal recourse against Mr. VanHorn. If Mr.
VanHorn assaulted him, Mr. Savage may have a cause of action against Mr. VanHorn under state
law. But unless Mr. Savage and Mr. VanHorn are citizens of different states and Mr. Savage is
seeking over $75,000 in damages, or unless Mr. Savage presents some other basis for federal
jurisdiction, this Court would not have jurisdiction over this claim, and Mr. Savage would need
to pursue it in state court. Nonetheless, the Court will give Mr. Savage an opportunity to amend
his complaint should he wish to attempt to cure these deficiencies.
The Court also notes that Mr. Savage has filed a form entitled “Motion for Witness.”
However, the form itself is blank, so it is not clear what relief Mr. Savage is seeking in this
filing. The Court therefore denies this motion. [DE 3].
For these reasons, the court:
(1)

STRIKES the complaint [DE 1];

(2)

TAKES the in forma pauperis petition [DE 2] under advisement;

(3)

GRANTS the Plaintiff to and including June 17, 2015, to file an amended

complaint;

2

(4)

CAUTIONS the Plaintiff that if he does not respond by the deadline, this case will

be dismissed without further notice; and
(5)

DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Witness [DE 3].

SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: May 18, 2015

/s/ JON E. DEGUILIO
Judge
United States District Court

3