JENKINS v. KNIGHT et al
Filing
9
ENTRY - There are no allegations in the Complaint upon which the Court could conclude that Wayne Mayes, Kent Fox, Tim Purcell, and Steven Hall are responsible for violating Mr. Jenkins' First Amendment rights, the claims against these individu als are dismissed. The claim for damages against Wendy Knight, William Hyatte, Alan McCraine, David Smith, and Dennis Miller in their individual capacities shall proceed as submitted. The Clerk is designated to issue and serve process on Defend ants Wendy Knight, William Hyatte, Alan McCraine, David Smith and Dennis Miller. Process shall consist of the Complaint, applicable forms, and this Entry. Plaintiff's 4 Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED without prejudice as prem ature because the Court has not acquired in personam jurisdiction over any of the Defendants. No partial final judgment shall issue at this time as to the claims resolved in this Entry. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 4/11/2013. Copies Mailed. (JD)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
MARK A. JENKINS,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
WENDY KNIGHT, Superintendent, Correctional )
Industrial Facility, WILLIAM HYATTE, Assistant )
Superintendent/Operations, Correctional Industrial )
Facility, TIM PURCELL, Assistant Superintendent/ )
Programs, Correctional Industrial Facility,
)
STEVEN HALL, Religious Services Director,
)
Indiana Dept. of Correction; ALAN MCRANE,
)
Chaplain, DAVID SMITH, Chaplain,
)
DENNIS MILLER, Captain, Correctional Industrial )
Facility, KENT FOX, Captain, WAYNE MAYES, )
Sergeant, Correctional Industrial Facility,
)
Individually and in their Official Capacities,
)
)
Defendants.
)
Case No. 1:13-cv-0099-TWP-MJD
ENTRY REGARDING CLAIMS, DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION, AND DIRECTING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
Plaintiff Mark A. Jenkins (“Mr. Jenkins”) alleges the defendants Wendy Knight, William
Hyatte, Tim Purcell, Steven Hall, Alan McCraine, David Smith, Dennis Miller, Kent Fox, and
Wayne Mayes, individually and in their official capacities, infringed upon his right to practice
his Native American religion in violation of the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use
and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc, et seq. Mr. Jenkins seeks
money damages and injunctive relief.
Because Mr. Jenkins is proceeding in forma pauperis, 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,
549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007). “To survive a motion to dismiss, 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) (internal quotation omitted).
I. DISCUSSION
A.
First Amendment Claim
The claim for damages is necessarily brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the
Defendants in their personal capacities. Damages against the Defendants in their official
capacities are barred by the State of Indiana’s sovereign immunity and RLUIPA does not create
a cause of action against state employees in their personal capacity. Grayson v. Schuler, 666
F.3d 450, 451 (7th Cir. 2012); Nelson v. Miller, 570 F.3d 868, 886–89 (7th Cir. 2009).
In order to be held liable for a violation of ' 1983 in an individual capacity, that person
must be “personally responsible for the deprivation of a constitutional right.”
Gentry v.
Duckworth, 65 F.3d 555, 561 (7th Cir. 1995). “A 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) (internal quotation omitted); Burks v. Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592, 593-94 (7th Cir. 2009)
(“Section 1983 does not establish a system of vicarious responsibility. Liability depends on each
defendant’s knowledge and actions, not on the knowledge or actions of persons they supervise.”)
(citing Monell v. New York City Dep't of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978)).
Because there are no allegations in the Complaint upon which the Court could conclude
2
that Wayne Mayes, Kent Fox, Tim Purcell, and Steven Hall are responsible for violating Mr.
Jenkins’ First Amendment rights, the claims against these individuals are dismissed. The only
allegation against Mr. Mayes is that he may have inaccurately reported a conversation he
overheard between Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Miller. The only allegations against Kent Fox and Tim
Purcell is that they appointed another offender as spokesperson for the Native American Circle
after the Superintendent had removed Mr. Jenkins from that position. The only allegation
against Mr. Hall is that Mr. Jenkins previously filed a complaint against him in state court which
was dismissed with prejudice.
The claim for damages against Wendy Knight, William Hyatte, Alan McCraine, David
Smith, and Dennis Miller in their individual capacities shall proceed as submitted.
B.
RLUIPA Claim
The claim for injunctive relief is considered under RLUIPA which confers greater
religious rights on prisoners than the free exercise clause has been interpreted to do. See 42
U.S.C. § 2000cc–1; Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 714–17 (2005); Grayson, 666 F.3d at
451. Mr. Jenkins seeks an order (1) directing the defendants to stop retaliating against him, (2)
reinstating him as the spokesman for the Native American Circle, and (3) prohibiting his transfer
from the Correctional Industrial Facility. Given the allegations in the Complaint, Superintendent
Wendy Knight, in her official capacity, appears to be a sufficient defendant for the purpose of
pursuing injunctive relief. All other claims for injunctive relief against the other Defendants in
their official capacities are dismissed as duplicative.
II. FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
The Clerk is designated, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3), to issue and serve process on
Defendants Wendy Knight, William Hyatte, Alan McCraine, David Smith and Dennis Miller in
3
the manner specified by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1).
Process shall consist of the Complaint,
applicable forms, and this Entry.
III. CONCLUSION
Mr. Jenkins’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 4) is DENIED without prejudice
as premature because the Court has not acquired in personam jurisdiction over any of the
Defendants.
No partial final judgment shall issue at this time as to the claims resolved in this Entry.
SO ORDERED.
04/11/2013
Date: __________________
________________________
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
DISTRIBUTION:
Mark A. Jenkins, #963737
Pendleton - CIF
Correctional Industrial Facility
Inmate Mail/Parcels
5124 West Reformatory Road
Pendleton, Indiana 46064
Alan McCraine, Chaplain
Correctional Industrial Facility
5124 West Reformatory Road
Pendleton, Indiana 46064
David Smith, Chaplain
Correctional Industrial Facility
5124 West Reformatory Road
Pendleton, Indiana 46064
Wendy Knight, Superintendent
Correctional Industrial Facility
5124 West Reformatory Road
Pendleton, Indiana 46064
Dennis Miller, Captain
Correctional Industrial Facility
5124 West Reformatory Road
Pendleton, Indiana 46064
William Hyatte, Assistant Superintendent
Correctional Industrial Facility
5124 West Reformatory Road
Pendleton, Indiana 46064
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?