TAYLOR v. BUTTS et al

Filing 17

ENTRY DISCUSSING AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. ORDER denying as moot 15 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. The plaintiff's amended complaint [dkt 16] is treated as a motion to amend the complaint and, as so treated, is granted. The clerk shall add defendants Officers Altman, Stone, and Lester to the docket. Defendants Hurst, Wright, and Bias have already appeared and will have through October 30, 2015, in which to file an answer to the amended complaint. The clerk is designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to defendants Altman, Stone, and Lester in the manner specified by Rule 4(d). Copies mailed. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/6/2015. (JLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

CHARLES MACK TAYLOR,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
HURST c/o,
WRIGHT c/o,
BIAS c/o,
STONE c/o,
ALTMAN c/o,
LETSTER c/o,
Defendants.

No. 1:15-cv-00874-TWP-TAB

Entry Discussing Amended Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings
I.
The plaintiff’s renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis [dkt 15] is denied a moot
because the plaintiff has already been granted leave to proceed in that fashion.
II.
The plaintiff’s amended complaint [dkt 16] is treated as a motion to amend the complaint
and, as so treated, is granted. The amended complaint is now subject to the screening requirement
of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 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). In determining whether the complaint states a claim, the Court
applies the same standard as when addressing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). See Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir. 2006).

Based on the foregoing screening, certain claims will be dismissed while others shall
proceed. First, any claim against Superintendent Keith Butts must be dismissed. To the extent
Superintendent Butts is included as a defendant because of his supervisory position, this position
alone is not adequate to support the imposition of liability. See West v. Waymire, 114 F.3d 646,
649 (7th Cir. 1997)(“the doctrine of respondeat superior is not available to a plaintiff in a section
1983 suit”). Further, this defendant is not mentioned in the body of the complaint. Potter v. Clark,
497 F.2d 1206, 1207 (7th Cir. 1974)(“Where a complaint alleges no specific act or conduct on the
part of the defendant and the complaint is silent as to the defendant except for his name appearing
in the caption, the complaint is properly dismissed.”).
The plaintiff’s claims against officers Altman, Stone, Hurst, Wright, Lester, and Bias that
for entering Mr. Taylor’s cell and assaulting him shall proceed as a claim that these defendants
exercised excessive force against Mr. Taylor in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
The clerk shall add defendants Officers Altman, Stone, and Lester to the docket.
Defendants Hurst, Wright, and Bias have already appeared and will have through October 30,
2015, in which to file an answer to the amended complaint.
The clerk is designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to defendants
Altman, Stone, and Lester in the manner specified by Rule 4(d). Process shall consist of the
amended complaint [dkt. 16] 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: 10/6/2015

Note to Clerk: Processing this document requires actions in addition to docketing and distribution.

Distribution:
CHARLES MACK TAYLOR
994511
NEW CASTLE PSYCHIATRIC UNIT
P.O. Box A
New Castle, IN 47362
All electronically registered counsel
Officer Stone
Officer Lester
Officer Altman
All at:
NEW CASTLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
1000 Van Nuys Road
P.O. Box A
New Castle, IN 47362