RIPPS v. CORIZON MED SVCS GROUP, et al.

Filing 24

ENTRY - The Complaint is dismissed. The dismissal of the complaint will not in this instance result in the dismissal of the action. Instead, the plaintiff shall have through February 19, 2013, in which to file an amended complaint. If no amended c omplaint is filed as permitted in Part II of this Entry, the action will be dismissed consistent with the dismissal of the complaint in Part I. All other proceedings are stayed. Given the dismissal of the complaint, and the time for filing an ame nded complaint all pending motions are denied without prejudice as premature, including plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [Dkt. 14 ], motion for federal investigation [Dkt. 15 ], motion to appoint counsel [Dkt. 16 ] and motion to compel [Dkt. 19 ]. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 1/18/2013. Copy Mailed. (JD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
JAMES RIPPS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CORIZON MED SVCS GROUP, also
known as CORIZON, INC. et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:12-cv-524-TWP-TAB

Entry Dismissing Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings
I. The Complaint is Dismissed
Plaintiff James T. Ripps, an inmate at the New Castle Correctional Facility,
filed this civil action alleging “felony prosecution,” “racketeering and official
corruption,” denial of timely medical care and deliberate indifference to serious
medical needs. He seeks fifty million dollars, criminal prosecution of the defendants,
and costs and fees.
Because Ripps is a prisoner, the complaint is subject to the screening
requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624
(7th Cir. 2006). Pursuant to this statute, “[a] complaint is subject to dismissal for
failure to state a claim if the allegations, taken as true, show that plaintiff is not
entitled to relief.” Jones v. Bock, 127 S. Ct. 910, 921 (2007). To satisfy the noticepleading standard of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint
must provide a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is

entitled to relief,” which is sufficient to provide the defendant with “fair notice” of
the claim and its basis. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (per curiam)
(citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) and quoting Fed. R. Civ.
P. 8(a)(2)). To survive a motion to dismiss, the 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, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)
(quotations omitted). Pro se complaints such as that filed by Ripps, are construed
liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers. Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94; Obriecht v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 491 n.2 (7th
Cir. 2008).
It has been noted that “dismissal of a complaint on the ground that it is
unintelligible is unexceptionable.” Davis v. Ruby Foods, Inc., 269 F.3d 818, 820 (7th
Cir. 2001). Ripp’s complaint is subject to dismissal as unintelligible. Specifically, it
is not clear from the caption in the complaint who the plaintiff is suing. Nor is it
clear what legal injury Ripps claims to have suffered and what persons or entities
are responsible for each such legal injury.
In addition, the complaint is titled “Fifty Million Dollar ($50,000,000.00)
Lawsuit for Felony Prosecution.” To the extent the plaintiff intends to use the
present action to commence criminal charges against the defendants, this effort
fails because only the government may commence criminal charges and because a

private individual has no right to compel such a prosecution. See Leeke v.
Timmerman, 454 U.S. 83 (1981) (holding that inmates lacked standing to force
issuance of arrest warrants of correctional officers for beatings); Ragsdale v.
Turnock, 941 F.2d 501, 509 (7th Cir. 1991) (private persons generally have no right
to enforce criminal statutes or to sue under them unless the statute also creates a
private right of action. (Posner, J., concurring), cert denied, 502 U.S. 1035 (1992).
II. An Amended Complaint May Be Filed
The dismissal of the complaint will not in this instance result in the dismissal
of the action. Benjamin v. United States, 833 F.2d 669, 671 (7th Cir. 1987). Instead,
the plaintiff shall have through February 19, 2013, in which to file an amended
complaint.
If an amended complaint is filed, it shall conform to the following guidelines:
!
The amended complaint shall comply with the requirement of Rule 8(a)(2) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that pleadings contain “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. . .”;
!
The amended complaint shall comply with the requirement of Rule 10 that
the allegations in a complaint be made in numbered paragraphs, each of which
should recite, as far as practicable, only a single set of circumstances; and
!
The amended complaint must identify what legal injury he claims to have
suffered and what persons are responsible for each such legal injury.
!
The amended complaint should clearly identify what federal claims are
asserted and what state law claims, if any, are asserted.
!

The amended complaint should not include legal argument.

III. Further Proceedings
If no amended complaint is filed as permitted in Part II of this Entry, the
action will be dismissed consistent with the dismissal of the complaint in Part I. If
an amended complaint is filed as permitted in Part II of this Entry, that pleading
will be Ascreened@ as required by 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A(b) and an appropriate order will
issue following the completion of that step. All other proceedings are stayed.
IV. Pending Motions
Given the dismissal of the complaint, and the time for filing an amended
complaint all pending motions are denied without prejudice as premature,
including plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [Dkt. 14], motion for federal
investigation [Dkt. 15], motion to appoint counsel [Dkt. 16] and motion to compel
[Dkt. 19].
IT IS SO ORDERED.

01/18/2013
Date: __________________
Distribution:
James Ripps
206580
New Castle - CF
1000 Van Nuys Road
P.O. Box A
New Castle, IN 47362
All Electronically Registered Counsel

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