SCANLAN v. MARION COUNTY COMMUNITY CORR et al

Filing 6

ENTRY Discussing Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings-Scanlan's Eighth Amendment claim against Brooks and Carlton shall proceed. (See Entry for further instructions) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 7/5/2017 (dist made)(CBU)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

WILLIAM A SCANLAN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MARION COUNTY COMMUNITY CORR,
DUVALL RESIDENTIAL WORK RELEASE
CENTER,
MR BROOKS Officer,
CARLTON Officer,
Defendants.

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

No. 1:17-cv-01643-TWP-DML

Entry Discussing Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings
Plaintiff William Scanlan, an inmate at the Marion County Jail II, brings this action
alleging that, when he was housed at the Duvall Residential Work Release Center, officers
Brooks and Carlton exercised excessive force against him causing him serious injuries.
The Screening Requirement
Because Scanlan 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 Scanlan, 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).
Scanlan alleges that on March 23, 2017, Brooks and Carlton handcuffed him and beat
him. This claim shall proceed as a claim that these defendants exercised excessive force against
him in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights.
Further Proceedings
In summary, Scanlan’s Eighth Amendment claim against Brooks and Carlton shall
proceed. He has not raised any claims against Marion County Community Corrections or the
Duval Residential Work Release Center. Those defendants shall be terminated on the docket. If
Scanlan believes he has raised a claim in his complaint that is not addressed in this Entry, he
shall have through August 7, 2017, to notify the Court.
The clerk is designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to Brooks and
Carlton 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: 7/5/2017
Distribution:
William Scanlan
983610
Marion County Jail II
730 East Washington Street
Indianapolis, IN
46202

Mr. Brooks
Duvall Residential Center
1848 Ludlow Ave
Indianapolis, IN 46201
Officer Carlton
Duvall Residential Center
1848 Ludlow Ave
Indianapolis, IN 46201