KELLY v. TALBIT, M.D. et al

Filing 23

Entry Discussing Amended Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings - The motion to amend the complaint [dkt 21] is granted. The clerk shall docket the proposed amended complaint (dkt 21-1) as the Amended Complaint. The plaintiff's request f or service by the United States Marshal [dkt 19] is denied for the present. The clerk is designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c) (3) to issue process to defendants Dr. Mike Person in the manner specified by Rule 4(d). Process shall consist of t he amended complaint, applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), and this Entry. (See order). Copy to Dr. Person via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 12/31/2015. (JLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

RICHARD KELLY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
PAUL TALBIT, et al.,

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:15-cv-01529-TWP-TAB

Entry Discussing Amended Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings
The motion to amend the complaint [dkt 21] is granted. The clerk shall docket the
proposed amended complaint (dkt 21-1) as the Amended Complaint.
Because the plaintiff is a “prisoner” as defined by 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(h), the amended
complaint is 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, 127 S. Ct. 910, 921 (2007). 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 the plaintiff, 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).

Based on the foregoing, the plaintiff’s amended complaint shall proceed as follows: The
claims that defendants Dr. Paul Talbit, Dr. Houman Kiani, and Dr. Mike Person have failed to treat
Mr. Kelly for his spine and hip damage and degenerative bone disease shall proceed as a claim
that these defendants have exhibited deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in
violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Defendants Talbit and Kiani have already appeared and filed an answer. They shall have
fourteen days from the date this Entry issues in which to file an answer to the amended complaint.
The plaintiff’s request for service by the United States Marshal [dkt 19] is denied for the
present. The clerk is designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to defendants
Dr. Mike Person in the manner specified by Rule 4(d). Process shall consist of the amended
complaint, 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: 12/31/2015
Distribution:
Richard Kelly
860033
Pendleton Correctional Facility
Electronic Service Participant – Court Only
Dr. Mike Person
New Castle Correctional Facility
P.O. Box A
New Castle, IN 47362
Note to Clerk: Processing this document requires actions in addition to docketing and distribution.