HAMPTON v. KNIGHT et al

Filing 16

Entry Discussing Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings - Based on the foregoing screening, the plaintiff's First Amendment claims shall proceed. Any Eighth Amendment claim alleged by the plaintiff based on the same facts is dismissed. S ee Conyers v. Abitz, 416 F.3d 580, 586 (7th Cir. 2005) ("Constitutional claims are to be addressed under the most applicable provision."). The clerk is designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to the defendants in the manner specified by Rule 4(d). Process shall consist of the complaint, applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), and this Entry. Copies to Petitioner and Respondent via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 4/14/2016. (JLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

EDWARD M. HAMPTON,
Petitioner,
vs.
WENDY KNIGHT Superintendent,
AARON COX T.C. Director,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:16-cv-00202-TWP-DKL

Entry Discussing Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings
Plaintiff Edward Hampton, an inmate at the Correctional Industrial Facility, brings this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the defendants have violated his First Amendment
rights by requiring him to act in violation of his sincerely held religious beliefs or face punishment.
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). 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 screening, the plaintiff’s First Amendment claims shall proceed.
Any Eighth Amendment claim alleged by the plaintiff based on the same facts is dismissed. See
Conyers v. Abitz, 416 F.3d 580, 586 (7th Cir. 2005) (“Constitutional claims are to be addressed
under the most applicable provision.”).
The clerk is designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to the defendants
in the manner specified by Rule 4(d). Process shall consist of the 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: 4/14/2016

Distribution:
EDWARD M. HAMPTON
988987
PENDLETON - CIF
CORRECTIONAL INDUSTRIAL FACILITY
Inmate Mail/Parcels
5124 West Reformatory Road
PENDLETON, IN 46064
Wendy Knight
Aaron Cox
Correctional Industrial Facility
5124 W. Reformatory Road
Pendleton, IN 46064