HAMPTON v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al

Filing 4

ENTRY Assessing Initial Partial Filing Fee, Dismissing Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings. The plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [dkt. 2] is granted. The plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of Three Do llars and Ninety-Three Cents ($3.93). He shall have through January 19, 2016, in which to pay this sum to the clerk of the district court. The complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The plaintiff shall have through January 19, 2016, in which to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. If the plaintiff fails to show cause or seek leave to amend his complaint, the action will be dismissed for the reasons set forth in this Entry. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 12/16/2015. Copy sent to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail. (BGT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

EDWARD M. HAMPTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS,
MIKE PENCE,
BRUCE LEMMON,
Defendants.

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

No. 1:15-cv-01966-JMS-MJD

Entry Assessing Initial Partial Filing Fee,
Dismissing Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings
I.

Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

The plaintiff=s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [dkt. 2] is granted. The plaintiff is
assessed an initial partial filing fee of Three Dollars and Ninety-Three Cents ($3.93). He shall have
through January 19, 2016, in which to pay this sum to the clerk of the district court.
II.

Screening

Plaintiff Edward Hampton, an inmate of the Correctional Industrial Facility, brings this
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because the plaintiff is a “prisoner” as defined by 28
U.S.C. § 1915(h), the 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).
The complaint names three defendants: 1) the Indiana Department of Correction (“IDOC”);
2) Governor Mike Pence; and 3) IDOC Commissioner Bruce Lemmon. The plaintiff alleges that
he was placed on the Restricted Movement Unit (“RMU”) at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility
(“Wabash Valley”) on October 30, 2015. He alleges that he was denied the opportunity to go to
the law library while he was in the RMU in violation of his First and Fourteenth Amendment
rights. He further alleges that “[t]he IDOC has allowed Wabash Valley to commit illegal acts
regarding their RMU for years and the Governor’s duty is to oversee the Commissioner who is
given his job by the Governor.” The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief in the form of closing the
RMU, as well as punitive damages.
Any claim for injunctive relief is dismissed as moot because the plaintiff is no longer
incarcerated at Wabash Valley.
The plaintiff’s constitutional claims relating to the denial of law library access are
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because he has not
alleged any resulting injury, meaning that “some action by the prison has frustrated or is impeding
an attempt to bring a nonfrivolous legal claim.” In re Maxy, 674 F.3d 658, 661 (7th Cir. 2012).
See also Marshall v. Knight, 445 F.3d 965, 968 (7th Cir.2006) (“[T]he mere denial of access to a
prison law library or to other legal materials is not itself a violation of a prisoner's rights ….”). The
plaintiff has not identified any legal claim that he has been prevented from pursuing as a result of
the denial of time in the prison law library.

Any claim against the IDOC is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted because the State or a state agency cannot be sued in federal court due to Indiana’s
Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 (1985); Omosegbon
v. Wells, 335 F.3d 668, 673 (7th Cir. 2003); Billman v. Indiana Dept. of Corrections, 56 F.3d 785,
788 (7th Cir. 1995).
Any claim against Governor Pence is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted because he is named only because he allegedly “oversees” or hired the
Commissioner. The Governor does not directly manage or run Wabash Valley. State officials are
not liable for alleged constitutional wrongdoing on the part of their subordinates. Without personal
participation, there can be no recovery under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In a section 1983 claim,
“individual-capacity claims cannot rest on a respondeat superior theory.” Wagoner v. Lemmon,
778 F.3d 586, 592 (7th Cir. 2015); Vinson v. Vermillion County, Illinois, 776 F.3d 924, 928 (7th
Cir. 2015) (“there is no respondeat superior liability for section 1983 claims”).
Any claim against Commissioner Lemmon is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted because he did not personally participate in denying the plaintiff
access to the law library. Id.
III. Further Proceedings
For the reasons set forth above, the complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The plaintiff shall have
through January 19, 2016, in which to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Luevano v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 722
F.3d 1014, 1022 (7th Cir. 2013) (plaintiffs should be given at least an opportunity to amend or to

respond to an order to show cause before a case is “tossed out of court without giving the applicant
any timely notice or opportunity to be heard to clarify, contest, or simply request leave to amend.”).
If the plaintiff fails to show cause or seek leave to amend his complaint, the action will be
dismissed for the reasons set forth in this Entry.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

December 16, 2015
Date: __________________

_______________________________

Distribution:
EDWARD M. HAMPTON
988987
PENDLETON - CIF
CORRECTIONAL INDUSTRIAL FACILITY
Inmate Mail/Parcels
5124 West Reformatory Road
PENDLETON, IN 46064

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