PERRY v. NOLL

Filing 18

ENTRY Screening Amended Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings - Like the original complaint, the amended complaint alleges defendant Dr. Noll violated the plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights through his constitutionally inadequate provisio n of dental care. This claim shall proceed as submitted.The amended complaint adds a tort claim against Corizon Health under Indiana Law. The plaintiff alleges that Corizon Health is liable to him for the misconduct of its employee. This claim shall proceed.Nothing in this Entry, however, prohibits the defendants from filing an appropriate motion to dismiss. The clerk is designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to defendant Corizon Health in the manner specified by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d). Process shall consist of the amended complaint (docket 17), applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), and this Entry. Copy to Corizon Health via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/24/2017.(JLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
RODNEY STEVEN PERRY, SR.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
GREG NOLL PCF Dentist,
Defendant.

Case No. 1:17-cv-00216-TWP-DML

Entry Screening Amended Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings
I.
The plaintiff is a prisoner currently incarcerated at Pendleton Correctional Facility.
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 shall proceed:
Like the original complaint, the amended complaint alleges defendant Dr. Noll violated the
plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights through his constitutionally inadequate provision of dental
care. This claim shall proceed as submitted.
The amended complaint adds a tort claim against Corizon Health under Indiana Law. The
plaintiff alleges that Corizon Health is liable to him for the misconduct of its employee. This claim
shall proceed.
Nothing in this Entry, however, prohibits the defendants from filing an appropriate motion
to dismiss.
III.
The clerk is designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to defendant
Corizon Health in the manner specified by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d). Process shall consist of the
amended complaint (docket 17), 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: 3/24/2017

Distribution:
RODNEY STEVEN PERRY, SR.
DOC # 974441
PENDLETON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Electronic Service Participant -- Court Only
All Electronically Registered Counsel
Corizon Health
103 Powell Ct.
Brentwood, TN 37027