PRITT v. LAYTON et al

Filing 21

ORDER granting Plaintiff's 20 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint, Screening Amended Complaint, and Directing Further Proceedings. The clerk shall re-docket the proposed amended complaint (dkt. [20-1]) as the amended complaint. In summary, Pritt's claims that defendant McCreary, Butner, and Mottram would not allow him to shower or obtain medical attention after being assaulted by feces shall proceed as a claim that these defendants failed to protect him from harm and ignored his serious medical needs in violation of his constitutional rights. His claim that his cell was infested with cockroaches and the defendants ignored this condition shall proceed as a claim that these defendants subjected him to unconstitu tional conditions of confinement. The clerk shall amend the docket to reflect that Deputy Sheriff Eric McCreary, Butner, and Mottram are the defendants in this action. 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 amended complaint, applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), and this Entry. (See Order) Copies Mailed. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 5/23/2018. (MAC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

STEVEN W. PRITT,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SHERIFF MATTHEW.
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:17-cv-02663-SEB-TAB

Entry Granting Motion to Amend,
Screening Amended Complaint, and Directing Further Proceedings
Plaintiff Steven Pritt, an inmate at the New Castle Correctional Facility, brings this action
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that his constitutional rights were violated while he was
confined at the Marion County Jail. After engaging in discovery to identify the proper
defendants, Pritt has filed a motion to amend his complaint. The motion is granted.
I. Screening Standard
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 amended 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. Discussion
Pritt alleges that while he was confined at the Marion County Jail, another inmate threw
feces on him and Deputy Sheriff Eric McCreary failed to file a report or separate them, which
left Pritt at risk of further assaults. In addition, the feces caused an infestation of cockroaches.
Deputy Sheriff McCreary did not allow Pritt to shower, obtain medical care, or file a grievance.
Pritt states that he told defendants that he has identified as “White Shirt Butner” and “White Shirt
Mottram” also denied his request for a shower and medical treatment. They also would not allow
Pritt to hang up a smock as a barrier from the other inmate’s assaults and would not otherwise
protect him from further assaults.
Applying the screening standard to the factual allegations in the amended complaint
certain claims are dismissed while other claims shall proceed as submitted.
Pritt’s claims that defendant McCreary, Butner, and Mottram would not allow him to
shower or obtain medical attention after being assaulted by feces shall proceed as a claim that
these defendants failed to protect him from harm and ignored his serious medical needs in
violation of his constitutional rights. His claim that his cell was infested with cockroaches and
the defendants ignored this condition shall proceed as a claim that these defendants subjected
him to unconstitutional conditions of confinement. It is unclear from the Amended Complaint
whether Pritt was a pretrial detainee or a convicted inmate at the time of these events. If he was a

pretrial detainee, the rights alleged derive from the Fourteenth Amendment. If he was a
convicted prisoner, the Eighth Amendment applies.
Any claim against Brewer Ramsey is dismissed. The plaintiff alleges claims against
Ramsey under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and asserts that Ramsey acted under color of state law, but he
also alleges that Ramsey was a fellow inmate at the Jail. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. §
1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the
United States and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting
under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). “The color of state law element
is a threshold issue; there is no liability under [Section] 1983 for those not acting under color of
law.” Groman v. Twp. of Manalapan, 47 F.3d 628, 638 (3d Cir. 1995). A person acts under color
of state law only when exercising power “possessed by virtue of state law and made possible
only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law.” United States v. Classic,
313 U.S. 299, 326 (1941). There is no allegation in the complaint that would support a
conclusion that Ramsey, a fellow Jail inmate, was exercising power he possessed by virtue of
state law.
This summary of remaining claims includes all of the viable claims identified by the
Court. All other claims have been dismissed. If the plaintiff believes that additional claims were
alleged in the complaint, but not identified by the Court, he shall have through June 11, 2018,
in which to identify those claims.
III. Duty to Update Address
The pro se plaintiff shall report any change of address within ten (10) days of any change.
The Court must be able to locate the plaintiff to communicate with him. If the plaintiff fails to

keep the Court informed of his current address, the action may be subject to dismissal for failure
to comply with Court orders and failure to prosecute.
IV. Conclusion and Service of Process
The motion to amend, dkt. [20], is granted. The clerk shall re-docket the proposed
amended complaint (dkt. 20-1) as the amended complaint.
In summary, Pritt’s claims that defendant McCreary, Butner, and Mottram would not
allow him to shower or obtain medical attention after being assaulted by feces shall proceed as a
claim that these defendants failed to protect him from harm and ignored his serious medical
needs in violation of his constitutional rights. His claim that his cell was infested with
cockroaches and the defendants ignored this condition shall proceed as a claim that these
defendants subjected him to unconstitutional conditions of confinement. The clerk shall amend
the docket to reflect that Deputy Sheriff Eric McCreary, Butner, and Mottram are the defendants
in this action.
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 amended 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.

5/23/2018
Date: _________________

_______________________________
SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
Steven W. Pritt
196024
New Castle Correctional Facility
1000 Van Nuys Road
New Castle, IN 47362
Deputy Sheriff McCreary
Marion County Jail
40 Alabama Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Butner
Marion County Jail
40 Alabama Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Mottram
Marion County Jail
40 Alabama Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204