SHANNON v. TRIVETT et al

Filing 10

Entry Discussing Amended Complaint, Dismissing Insufficient Claims, and Directing Further Proceedings: Giving the complaint a liberal reading, Mr. Shannon's claims alleging that Nurse Trivett, Nurse Jordan, and Dr. Polar were delibera tely indifferent to his serious medical needs shall proceed. These are the only viable claims which have been identified by the Court. If the plaintiff intended to assert additional claims which were not identified and discussed in this Ent ry, he shall have through July 31, 2015, in which to identify such claims. The clerk shall update the docket accordingly, dismissing NP Wilson, NP Mukona, Dr. Altman, and Corizon as defendants on the docket ***SEE ENTRY FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION***. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 6/30/2015. Copy sent via US Mail.(DW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
MARK A. SHANNON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
REBECCA TRIVETT, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:15-cv-0807-WTL-TAB

Entry Discussing Amended Complaint, Dismissing Insufficient Claims, and Directing
Further Proceedings
I. Background
The plaintiff, Mark A. Shannon (“Mr. Shannon”) is incarcerated at the Plainfield
Correctional Facility (“Plainfield”). This civil rights complaint is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Mr. Shannon has paid the filing fee. Mr. Shannon has named the following defendants: 1)
Nurse Rebecca Trivett; 2) Nurse Practitioner Dana Wilson (“NP Wilson”); 3) Nurse Practitioner
Loice Mukona (“NP Mukona”); 4) Dr. Daniel Altman; 5) Nurse Toni Jordan; 6) Dr. Murat Polar;
and 7) Corizon Medical Services (“Corizon”). Mr. Shannon alleges that he was denied adequate
medical care in violation of his Eighth Amendments rights. He seeks compensatory and punitive
damages.
The amended complaint, filed on May 22, 2015, is now subject to the screening required
by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). This statute directs that the Court dismiss a complaint or any claim
within a complaint that “(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. “A
complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim if the allegations, taken as true, show
the plaintiff is not entitled to relief.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007).

II. Screening
A.
To satisfy the notice-pleading standard of Rule 8(a)(2) 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.” Such a statement must provide the defendant with “fair notice” of the
claim and its basis. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). 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, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(internal quotation omitted). Pro se complaints 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).
B.
For the reasons set forth in this Entry, certain claims must be dismissed for failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted, while others shall proceed.
Insufficient Claims
The amended complaint alleges that Dr. Altman failed to adequately and properly read Mr.
Shannon’s x-ray films. He alleges that Dr. Altman was negligent and committed acts of medical
malpractice. These allegations do not state a claim of deliberate indifference. See Berry v.
Peterman, 604 F.3d 435, 441 (7th Cir. 2010) (“Neither medical malpractice nor mere disagreement
with a doctor’s medical judgment is enough to prove deliberate indifference in violation of the
Eighth Amendment.”); Harper v. Albert, 400 F.3d 1052, 1065 (7th Cir. 2005) (negligence or even

gross negligence is not enough to state a claim under § 1983). The claim against Dr. Altman is
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Similarly, the claims against NP Wilson and NP Mukona are dismissed for failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted because the amended complaint alleges that they told
him there was nothing wrong with his thumb, and that NP Wilson provided him with a brace for
the wrong hand. These allegations amount to negligence, not deliberate indifference.
Any claim against Corizon is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted because Mr. Shannon does not allege that his lack of treatment was the result of an
affirmative policy or practice of Corizon. Corizon is a corporate entity that is not vicariously liable
for misdeeds of its employees, and can only be liable “if it maintains a policy that sanctions the
maintenance of prison conditions that infringe upon the constitutional rights of the prisoners.”
Woodward v. Correctional Medical Services of Illinois, Inc., 368 F.3d 917, 927 (7th Cir.
2004)(internal quotation omitted); see also Johnson v. Dossey, 515 F.3d 778, 782 (7th Cir. 2008).
No partial final judgment shall issue as to the claims dismissed in this Entry.
Claims That Shall Proceed
Giving the complaint a liberal reading, Mr. Shannon’s claims alleging that Nurse Trivett,
Nurse Jordan, and Dr. Polar were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs shall
proceed.
These are the only viable claims which have been identified by the Court. If the plaintiff
intended to assert additional claims which were not identified and discussed in this Entry, he shall
have through July 31, 2015, in which to identify such claims.
The clerk shall update the docket accordingly, dismissing NP Wilson, NP Mukona, Dr.
Altman, and Corizon as defendants on the docket.

III.

Service of Process

The clerk is designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c) to issue process to defendants Nurse
Rebecca Trivett, Nurse Toni Jordan, and Dr. Murat Polar in the manner specified by Rule 4(d).
Process shall consist of the amended complaint filed on May 22, 2015 (docket 3), applicable forms
(Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of
Summons), and this Entry.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 6/30/15
Distribution:

_______________________________
Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Mark A. Shannon
#219451
Plainfield Correctional Facility
Inmate Mail/Parcels
727 Moon Road
Plainfield, IN 46168
Nurse Rebecca Trivett
Plainfield Correctional Facility
727 Moon Road
Plainfield, IN 46168
Nurse Toni Jordan
Plainfield Correctional Facility
727 Moon Road
Plainfield, IN 46168
Dr. Murat Polar
Plainfield Correctional Facility
727 Moon Road
Plainfield, IN 46168
NOTE TO CLERK: PROCESSING THIS DOCUMENT REQUIRES ACTIONS IN ADDITION TO DOCKETING AND DISTRIBUTION.