DAVIS v. PLAINFIELD CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
ENTRY - Screening Amended Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings; The plaintiff's claims against the unknown female correctional officer must be dismissed.The plaintiff's claims against Warden Stanley Knight are dismissed. The p laintiff's allegations against R. Gaskin, however, are sufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim against him. This claim shall therefore proceed. The clerk is designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to defendant R . Gaskin in the manner specified by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d). Process shall consist of the Amended Complaint (docket 16), applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), and this Entry. The clerk is directed to update the docket to reflect that R. Gaskins is the only defendant in this action. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 11/30/2017. Copy Mailed.(CKM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
PLAINFIELD CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,
Entry Screening Amended Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings
The plaintiff is a prisoner currently incarcerated at Putnamville 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).
The plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against three employees of
Plainfield Correctional Facility (“Plainfield”), Defendants Stanley Knight, Internal Affairs Officer
R. Gaskins, and an unknown female correctional officer.
The plaintiff alleges that, while
incarcerated at Plainfield, the unknown female correctional officer facilitated another inmate’s
entrance into the plaintiff’s cell and that inmate attacked the plaintiff with a knife. During the
attack, the plaintiff was stabbed in the leg. Although the plaintiff asked Internal Affairs Officer R.
Gaskins for medical treatment for his leg, R. Gaskins refused. Another correctional officer
informed the plaintiff that R. Gaskins directed him not to provide the plaintiff with medical
treatment because he was not cooperating with the investigation. Eventually, the plaintiff was
found guilty of battery during a prison disciplinary proceeding and, among other things, lost onehundred-eighty days of earned credit time.
First, the plaintiff’s claims against the unknown female correctional officer must be
dismissed. “[I]t is pointless to include [an] anonymous defendant  in federal court; this type of
placeholder does not open the door to relation back under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, nor can it otherwise
help the plaintiff.” Wudtke v. Davel, 128 F.3d 1057, 1060 (7th Cir. 1997) (internal citations
omitted). However, if the plaintiff is able to identify the unknown officer through discovery, he
may file a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.
Second, the plaintiff’s claims against Warden Stanley Knight are dismissed.
constitutional violations under § 1983 or Bivens, a government official is only liable for his or her
own misconduct.” Locke v. Haessig, 788 F.3d 662, 669 (7th Cir. 2015) (citation and quotation
marks omitted). Thus “[a] damages suit under § 1983 requires that a defendant be personally
involved in the alleged constitutional deprivation.” Matz v. Klotka, 769 F.3d 517, 528 (7th Cir.
2014); see Minix v. Canarecci, 597 F.3d 824, 833 (7th Cir. 2010) (“[I]ndividual liability under
§ 1983 requires ‘personal involvement in the alleged constitutional deprivation.’”) (citation and
quotation marks omitted). There are no allegations in the Amended Complaint regarding Warden
Knight, let alone allegations that he was personally involved in the alleged constitutional
The plaintiff’s allegations against R. Gaskin, however, are sufficient to state an Eighth
Amendment claim against him. This claim shall therefore proceed.
The plaintiff is notified that he cannot obtain restoration of his earned credit time or
otherwise challenge his prison disciplinary action via this civil rights action for money damages
under § 1983. He must bring a separate habeas action if he wishes to do so.
Given the foregoing, the following claims shall proceed:
An Eighth Amendment claim against R. Gaskin.
The clerk is designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to defendant R.
Gaskin in the manner specified by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d). Process shall consist of the Amended
Complaint (docket 16), applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of
Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), and this Entry.
The clerk is directed to update the docket to reflect that R. Gaskins is the only defendant
in this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
PUTNAMVILLE - CF
PUTNAMVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
1946 West U.S. Hwy 40
Greencastle, IN 46135
Electronic Service to the IDOC:
Internal Affairs Officer R. Gaskins – Plainfield Correctional Facility
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?