WILLIAMS v. DOE
Entry Screening Complaint and Directing Service of Process. Mr. Williams believes that additional claims were alleged in the complaint but not identified by the Court, he shall have through December 22, 2017, in which to identify those claims. Give n the foregoing, the Eighth Amendment claim shall proceed against Officer Strout (or Stout). The clerk is designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to defendant Officer Strout (or Stout) in the manner specified by Fed. R. Civ . P. 4(d). Process shall consist of the complaint filed on October 2, 2017 docket 1 , applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), and this Entry. The clerk shall modify the docket to show Officer Strout (or Stout) as the defendant. (Copy sent to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail) Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 12/4/2017.(JDC) Modified on 12/4/2017 (JDC).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
WARREN L. WILLIAMS,
JOHN DOE sued in individual capacity,
[Unknown officer at R.D.C.],
Entry Screening Complaint and Directing Service of Process
Plaintiff Warren Williams is a prisoner currently incarcerated at New Castle 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
[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 complaint is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and names a single defendant: Officer
Strout (or Stout), a correctional officer at the Reception Diagnostic Center. Mr. Williams alleges
that on November 15, 2016, Officer Strout (or Stout) knowingly caused a cell door to close and
remain closed for a period of time on his right hand, causing severe pain and long term injuries.
Although Mr. Warren also alleges that he was deliberately denied necessary and adequate
medical care after the injury, he does not list any medical providers who denied him treatment as
defendants in the complaint. Dkt. No. 1, p. 1. A pro se litigant may choose who to sue and who
not to sue, so the Court will not guess whether he wishes to bring claims against any other
individuals discussed in the body of the complaint. In addition, any claims against the medical
providers would belong in a different lawsuit. “Unrelated claims against different defendants
belong in different suits.” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Mr. Williams may
file another lawsuit against individual medical providers after he has exhausted his
administrative remedies, if he wishes to do so. He would incur an additional filing fee by filing
The claim of deliberate indifference to Mr. Williams’ health and safety brought against
Officer Strout (or Stout) shall proceed as an Eighth Amendment claim. This is the only viable
claim the Court discerns in the complaint.
If Mr. Williams believes that additional claims were alleged in the complaint but not
identified by the Court, he shall have through December 22, 2017, in which to identify those
III. Service of Process
Given the foregoing, the Eighth Amendment claim shall proceed against Officer Strout
(or Stout). The clerk is designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to
defendant Officer Strout (or Stout) in the manner specified by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d). Process shall
consist of the complaint filed on October 2, 2017 (docket 1), applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit
and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), and this
The clerk shall modify the docket to show Officer Strout (or Stout) as the defendant.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
WARREN L. WILLIAMS
NEW CASTLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Inmate Mail/Parcels
1000 Van Nuys Road
NEW CASTLE, IN 47362
Electronic service to:
Officer Strout (or Stout)
At Reception Diagnostic Center
NOTE TO CLERK: PROCESSING THIS DOCUMENT REQUIRES ACTIONS IN ADDITION TO DOCKETING AND DISTRIBUTION.
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?