SMITH-BEY v. BUSS et al

Filing 33

Entry Granting Motion to Dismiss - The motion to dismiss filed by defendants Buss and Hall [Dkt. 18 ] is GRANTED. No partial final judgment shall issue at this time as to the claim(s) resolved in this Entry. The claims which remain are those seek ing injunctive relief from defendant Dodd in his official capacity and seeking damages from defendant Dodd in his individual capacity. Directions heretofore issued to defendant Hall relating to the plaintiff's effort to secure release of religious items shall apply to defendant Dodd. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 7/27/2012. Copy Mailed. (JD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FRANCIS L SMITH-BEY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
EDWIN G. BUSS, STEPHEN T.
HALL, and MARK DODD,
Defendants.

)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:11-cv-1204-TWP-MJD

Entry Granting Motion to Dismiss
This is an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Two of the three
defendants seek dismissal of the claims against them pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
I.
The plaintiff is a state prisoner who alleges that his federally secured rights
have been violated through the confiscation of religious items and other
infringements of his religious practices. To survive the motion to dismiss and
comply with the requirements of Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, (2007)). “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.” Id. (citing Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 556).
“Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to . . . § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must
plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official's own individual
actions, has violated the Constitution.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676. Thus, only persons
who cause or participate in a constitutional violation are responsible pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. George v. Smith. 507 F.3d 605, 609-610 (7th Cir. 2007). AA defendant
will be deemed to have sufficient personal responsibility if he directed the conduct
causing the constitutional violation, or if it occurred with his knowledge or consent.@
Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 740 (7th Cir. 2001).
The allegations in the amended complaint fail to plausibly meet the personal
participation requirement as to defendants Buss and Hall because these defendants
are not alleged to have personally caused or participated in the asserted
constitutional violations. These defendants neither conducted nor directed the
actions which the plaintiff asserts violated his rights.
II.
The motion to dismiss filed by defendants Buss and Hall [Dkt. 18] is
granted.1
No partial final judgment shall issue at this time as to the claim(s) resolved
in this Entry.
The claims which remain are those seeking injunctive relief from defendant
Dodd in his official capacity and seeking damages from defendant Dodd in his

1 The

motion to dismiss was previously granted as to any claim for damages against the defendants
in their official capacities.

individual capacity. Directions heretofore issued to defendant Hall relating to the
plaintiff’s effort to secure release of religious items shall apply to defendant Dodd.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

07/27/2012
Date: __________________

________________________
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
Sheik Francis Smith-Bey
955755
Pendleton Correctional Facility
Inmate Mail/Parcels
4490 West Reformatory Road
Pendleton, IN 46064
All electronically Registered Counsel