PEDERSON v. BOWLBY

Filing 4

ENTRY - The Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because it lacks factual content. The dismissal of the Complaint shall not result at this point in the dismissal of the action. The plaintiff shall hav e the opportunity to file an amended complaint. He shall have through November 15, 2013, in which to do so. The plaintiff is notified that the amended complaint will completely replace and supersede the original complaint. If no amended complaint is submitted, the action will be dismissed consistent with the discussion and ruling in Part II of this Entry. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 10/15/2013. (copy to Plaintiff via US Mail) (JKS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
CARL W PEDERSON,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
MICHAEL D. BOWLBY Sheriff of Shelby
County,
Defendant.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01621-JMS-DKL

Entry Discussing Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings
Plaintiff Carl W. Pederson, a pretrial detainee at the Shelby County Criminal Justice
Center, seeks a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief from Michael D. Bowlby, the Shelby
County Sheriff. Pederson has a list of complaints related to grievances, safety, sanitation,
housing, recreation, and law library access. This action is necessarily brought pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983.
I.
The complaint is now subject to the screening requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). This
statute directs that the Court dismiss a complaint or any claim within a complaint which “(1) is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. 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)). The purpose of this requirement is Ato give the

defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555 (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). Thus, a “plaintiff must do better
than putting a few words on paper that, in the hands of an imaginative reader, might suggest that
something has happened to her that might be redressed by the law.” Swanson v. Citibank, N.A.,
614 F.3d 400, 403 (7th Cir. 2010) (emphasis in original). The complaint “must actually suggest
that the plaintiff has a right to relief, by providing allegations that raise a right to relief above the
speculative level.” Windy City Metal Fabricators & Supply, Inc. v. CIT Tech. Fin. Servs., 536
F.3d 663, 668 (7th Cir. 2008) (quoting Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1084 (7th Cir.
2008)).
“Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights; instead it is a means for
vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.” Ledford v. Sullivan, 105 F.3d 354, 356 (7th Cir.
1997) (citing Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144, n.3 (1979)). Accordingly, “the first step in
any [§1983] claim is to identify the specific constitutional right infringed.” Albright v. Oliver,
510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994). As a pretrial detainee, Pederson is entitled to protection under the
Fourteenth Amendment.
An act or practice that violates the Eighth Amendment also violates the Fourteenth
Amendment rights of a pre-trial detainee. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 536 n.16 (1979); Martin
v. Tyson, 845 F.2d 1451, 1456 (7th Cir. 1988). “The conditions of imprisonment, whether of
pretrial detainees or of convicted criminals, do not reach even the threshold of constitutional
concern until a showing is made of ‘genuine privations and hardship over an extended period of
time.’” Duran v. Elrod, 760 F.2d 756 (7th Cir. 1985) (quoting Bell, 441 U.S. at 542).
The Plaintiff=s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because
it lacks factual content allowing the Court to draw the reasonable inference that the conditions of

his confinement involve the deprivation of a single identifiable human need or the denial of the
minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities. The Plaintiff must do more than list his basic
human needs. He must allege facts which show he was deprived of these human needs over an
extended period of time. See James v. Milwaukee County, 956 F.2d 696, 699 (7th Cir. 1992)
(“not all prison conditions trigger eighth amendment scrutiny--only deprivations of basic human
needs like food, medical care, sanitation, and physical safety.”). Duran v. Elrod, 760 F.2d 756
(7th Cir. 1985) (AThe conditions of imprisonment, whether of pretrial detainees or of convicted
criminals, do not reach even the threshold of constitutional concern until a showing is made of
‘genuine privations and hardship over an extended period of time.’”)(quoting Bell, 441 U.S. at
542).
II.
The dismissal of the Complaint shall not result at this point in the dismissal of the action.
The plaintiff shall have the opportunity to file an amended complaint. He shall have through
November 15, 2013, in which to do so.
The plaintiff is notified that the amended complaint will completely replace and
supersede the original complaint. Massey v. Helman, 196 F.3d 727, 735 (7th Cir. 1999). In
submitting an amended complaint, the plaintiff 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.

!

The amended complaint must identify what legal injury he claims to have suffered
and what persons are responsible for each such legal injury.

If no amended complaint is submitted, the action will be dismissed consistent with the discussion
and ruling in Part II of this Entry. If an amended complaint is filed as directed, it too will be
subject to screening pursuant to ' 1915A.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________________________

10/15/2013
Date: __________________

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

Distribution:
CARL W PEDERSON
SHELBY COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE CENTER
107 W. TAYLOR STREET
SHELBYVILLE, IN 46176
All Electronically Registered Counsel