LAUDERDALE v. LAYTON et al

Filing 11

ENTRY Screening Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings - Given the foregoing, the following claims are dismissed: Any claim against Sheriff John Layton is dismissed. Lauderdale alleges no actionable wrong doing by Sheriff Layton. Any claim t hat the plaintiff was denied equal protection under the law is also dismissed because he does not allege that he was treated unfairly based on his membership in any particular protected class.The claims that Deputies William Russell, Devon Clark, Thomas Williams, and Shultz exercised excessive force against the plaintiff and exhibited deliberate indifference to his need for medical attention shall proceed as claims that these defendants violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights a nd as claims that these defendants battered the plaintiff in violation of Indiana law. The clerk shall terminate defendant Layton from the docket. The defendants have already appeared in this action. They shall have twenty-one days after the issuance of this Entry to file an Answer to the complaint. (See entry.) Copy to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 11/22/2016.(JLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

LAMONE LAUDERDALE,

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

Plaintiff,
vs.
JOHN LAYTON,
WILLIAM RUSSELL Deputy,
SCHULTZ Deputy,
DEVON CLARK Deputy,
THOMAS WILLIAMS Corporal,
Defendants.

No. 1:16-cv-02684-TWP-DKL

Entry Screening Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings
I.
The plaintiff is a prisoner currently incarcerated at the Putnamville Correctional Facility.
He brought this action in Marion Superior Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Indiana state
law alleging that his rights were violated when he was housed at the Marion County Jail. The
defendants then removed the action to this Court. Because the plaintiff is a “prisoner” as defined
by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h), this Court has an obligation under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) to screen his
complaint before service on the defendants. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the Court must
dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 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). To survive dismissal,

[the] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a
claim for 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). 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. Obriecht v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 491 n.2 (7th Cir. 2008).
II.
Given the foregoing, the following claims are dismissed: Any claim against Sheriff John
Layton is dismissed. Lauderdale alleges no actionable wrong doing by Sheriff Layton. Evidently
Sheriff Layton is named because of his overall responsibility for the operation of the Marion
County Jail. This itself will not support liability under § 1983. Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422,
1428 (7th Cir. 1996) ("a prisoner may not attribute any of his constitutional claims to higher
officials by the doctrine of respondeat superior; the official must actually have participated in the
constitutional wrongdoing."). Lauderdale’s allegations that Sheriff Layton failed to provide a safe
environment and “allowed deputies” to assault him are too vague to raise a right to relief above
the speculative level. See Limestone Development Corp. v. Village of Lemont, Ill., 520 F.3d 797,
803 (7th Cir. 2008) (“[a] complaint must always . . . allege ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.’”) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974
(2007)). Any claim that the plaintiff was denied equal protection under the law is also dismissed
because he does not allege that he was treated unfairly based on his membership in any particular
protected class. Herro v. City of Milwaukee, 44 F.3d 550, 552 (7th Cir. 1995) (“A person bringing
an action under the Equal Protection Clause must show intentional discrimination against him
because of his membership in a particular class, not merely that he was treated unfairly as an
individual.”).

The claims that Deputies William Russell, Devon Clark, Thomas Williams, and Shultz
exercised excessive force against the plaintiff and exhibited deliberate indifference to his need for
medical attention shall proceed as claims that these defendants violated the plaintiff’s
constitutional rights and as claims that these defendants battered the plaintiff in violation of Indiana
law.
The clerk shall terminate defendant Layton from the docket. The defendants have already
appeared in this action. They shall have twenty-one days after the issuance of this Entry to file an
Answer to the complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 11/22/2016

Distribution:
All electronically registered counsel
LAMONE LAUDERDALE
PUTNAMVILLE - CF
PUTNAMVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Inmate Mail/Parcels
1946 West U.S. Hwy 40
Greencastle, IN 46135