HUDSON v. CORIZON MEDICAL SERVICES et al

Filing 8

ENTRY Discussing Complaint, Dismissing Claims and Directing Further Proceedings - Hudson's claims against the Indiana Department of Corrections ("IDOC") are dismissed. Claims against Superintendent Brian Smith are dismissed for fai lure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The plaintiff's request that this action proceed as a class action is DENIED. Hudson's claims that he was provided constitutionally inadequate or delayed medical care by Corizon Medi cal Services, Dr. Richard A. Tanner, Marla Gadberry and John Dallas for his genital warts and staph infection in violation of the Eighth Amendment shall proceed as submitted. His claim of retaliation by these defendants in violation of the First Ame ndment shall also proceed. The clerk is designated, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3), to issue and serve process on the defendants in the manner specified by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (d)(1). Process shall consist of the complaint, applicable forms and this Entry. (SEE ENTRY). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 9/18/2012. (copy to Plaintiff via US Mail, copy to Defendants with Notice of Lawsuit and Request to Waive sent via US Mail) (JKS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
KEVIN HUDSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:12-cv-1206-JMS-DML

Entry Discussing Complaint, Dismissing Claims
and Directing Further Proceedings
I.
Plaintiff Kevin E. Hudson, an inmate at the Plainfield Correctional Facility,
filed this civil action alleging that he has been provided constitutionally inadequate
or delayed medical care by Corizon Medical Services, Dr. Richard A. Tanner, Marla
Gadberry and John Dallas for his ailments including genital warts and staph
infection.
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 notice-pleading 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 Kevin Hudson, 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).
II.
Applying the standard set forth above certain claims are dismissed while
other claims shall proceed as submitted.
Hudson’s claims against the Indiana Department of Corrections
(“IDOC”) are dismissed. Eleventh Amendment immunity bars suits against
states and their agencies regardless of the relief sought, whether damages or
injunctive relief. Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 58 (1996);
Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 102 (1984). In
addition, states and their agencies are not Apersons@ subject to suit pursuant to 42
U.S.C. ' 1983 under the circumstances alleged in Hudson’s complaint. Will v.
Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989).
Claims against Superintendent Brian Smith are dismissed for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The alleged failure of this
defendant to respond to letters or complaints about the conditions of Hudson’s
confinement is not sufficient to bring them into the zone of liability under ' 1983,
because "[t]he general responsibility of a warden for supervising the operation of a
prison is not sufficient to establish personal liability." Estate of Rosenberg v.
Crandell, 56 F.3d 35, 37 (8th Cir. 1995). Hudson’s allegations do not suggest a
plausible basis for concluding that this supervisory defendants caused or
participated in the alleged constitutional deprivation. See Wolf-Lillie v. Sonquist,
699 F.2d 864, 869 (7th Cir. 1983).
Any state law claims thought to be brought in this action or any
claims based on the theory that certain policies of the Plainfield
Correctional Facility violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights are
summarily dismissed because they are factually undeveloped. “A pleading
that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause
of action will not do. . . . Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertion[s]
devoid of further factual enhancement.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(internal quotations omitted).
The plaintiff=s request that this action proceed as a class action is denied.
He is entitled to proceed on his own behalf and to assert only his own claims, not
those of others.
Any due process or equal protection claims asserted pursuant to the
Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment are dismissed. Hudson’s claims are

sufficiently based on the protections afforded by the First and Eighth Amendments
to the Constitution. There is no occasion to invoke the important but limited
protections of due process and equal protection. Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 273
(1994) ("Where a particular Amendment provides an explicit textual source of
constitutional protection against a particular sort of government behavior, that
Amendment, not the more generalized notion of substantive due process, must be
the guide for analyzing such a claim.") (plurality opinion of Rehnquist, C.J.)
(internal quotations omitted).
III.
Hudson’s claims that he was provided constitutionally inadequate or delayed
medical care by Corizon Medical Services, Dr. Richard A. Tanner, Marla Gadberry
and John Dallas for his genital warts and staph infection in violation of the Eighth
Amendment shall proceed as submitted. His claim of retaliation by these
defendants in violation of the First Amendment shall also proceed.
The clerk is designated, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3), to issue and serve
process on the defendants in the manner specified by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1). Process
shall consist of the complaint, applicable forms and this Entry.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________________________

09/18/2012
Date: __________________

Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
KEVIN HUDSON
922839
PLAINFIELD - CF
PLAINFIELD CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY
Inmate Mail/Parcels
727 MOON ROAD
PLAINFIELD, IN 46168
Corizon Medical Services
12647 Olive Blvd.
St. Louis, MO 63141

Dr. Richard A. Tanner
Plainfield Correctional Facility
727 Moon Rd.
Plainfield, IN 46168
Marla Gadberry
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility
6908 S. Old U.S. Highway 41
P.O. Box 500
Carlisle , IN 47838
John Dallas
Indiana Department of Correction
E-334, 302 West Washington Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204