SNYDER v. ZATECKY et al
ENTRY Screening Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings - If the plaintiff believes that additional claims were alleged in the complaint, but not identified by the Court he shall have through December 28, 2017, in which to identify those c laims. The clerk is designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (c)(3) to issue process to defendants 1) Warden Zatecky, 2) Lt. Rinehart, and 3) Property Officer McCoy in the manner specified by Rule 4(d). Process shall consist of the amended complain t filed on November 3, 2017, (docket 8), 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 designated to serve the Indiana Department of Correction employees electronically. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 12/6/2017. (Copy mailed to Plaintiff) (MEJ)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
ROBERT LEE SNYDER,
DUSHAN ZATECKY Warden,
ANDREW COLE Assistant Warden,
MIKE SPURGEON Captain,
JACKSON Property Officer; Sergeant,
ASHLEY MCCOY Property Officer,
CHARLES RINEHART Lieutenant,
GERARD SPEARS Unit Team Manager,
KRISTYN DICKINSON Counselor,
Entry Screening Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings
I. Screening Standard
Plaintiff Robert Lee Snyder is a prisoner currently incarcerated at Pendleton Correctional
Facility (“Pendleton”). 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 amended
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 amended
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. The Amended Complaint
The amended complaint names Warden Duschan Zatecky, Assistant Warden Andrew Cole,
Captain Mike Spurgeon, Property Officer Sgt. Jackson, Property Officer Ashley McCoy, Lt.
Charles Rinehart, Unit Team Manager Gerard Spears, and Counselor Kristyn Dickinson as
defendants. All defendants are Indiana Department of Correction employees working at Pendleton.
His claims are brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The plaintiff alleges that on July 28, 2017, he was transferred from Putnamville
Correctional Facility to Pendleton. Upon arrival at Pendleton, the plaintiff told staff that he had
back and left shoulder problems and that he needed medical items and medications that were with
his property. He was not allowed to use those items and was told that he had to wait 14 days to be
issued his property. The plaintiff also sought and was initially denied a bottom bunk pass. When
he was finally seen by medical personnel he was told that there was nothing they could do for him.
The plaintiff was finally issued a bottom bunk pass on October 12, 2017, because outside medical
records confirmed that he had a bone fusion in his lower back. However, from October 12 through
the date this complaint was filed, the plaintiff was still placed in a top bunk.
The plaintiff specifically addressed to his complaints regarding his property and top bunk
placement to Warden Zatecky, Lt. Rinehart, and Property Officer McCoy. His grievances went
unresolved. The plaintiff seeks money damages and injunctive relief.
III. Discussion of Claims
Applying the screening standard to the factual allegations in the amended complaint certain
claims are dismissed while other claims shall proceed as submitted.
The amended complaint’s factual allegations are sufficient to allege an Eighth Amendment
deliberate indifference claim against 1) Warden Zatecky, 2) Lt. Rinehart, and 3) Property Officer
McCoy based on their failure to timely release his necessary medical supplies in his property and
denial of a bottom bunk.
The claims against defendants Assistant Warden Andrew Cole, Captain Mike Spurgeon,
Property Officer Sgt. Jackson, Unit Team Manager Gerard Spears, and Counselor Kristyn
Dickinson are dismissed as legally insufficient because there is no allegation of wrongdoing on
their part. “Where a complaint alleges no specific act or conduct on the part of the defendant and
the complaint is silent as to the defendant except for his name appearing in the caption, the
complaint is properly dismissed.” Potter v. Clark, 497 F.2d 1206, 1207 (7th Cir. 1974); I, 22 F.3d
1395, 1401 and n.8 (7th Cir. 1994) (district court properly dismissed complaint against one
defendant when the complaint alleged only that defendant was charged with the administration of
the institution and was responsible for all persons at the institution).
If the plaintiff believes that additional claims were alleged in the complaint, but not
identified by the Court he shall have through December 28, 2017, in which to identify those
IV. 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 or her current address, the action may be subject to dismissal for failure
to comply with Court orders and failure to prosecute.
V. Service of Process
The clerk is designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to defendants
1) Warden Zatecky, 2) Lt. Rinehart, and 3) Property Officer McCoy in the manner specified by
Rule 4(d). Process shall consist of the amended complaint filed on November 3, 2017, (docket 8),
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 designated to serve the Indiana Department of Correction employees
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Electronic service to:
Property Officer McCoy
All at Pendleton Correctional Facility
ROBERT LEE SNYDER
PENDLETON - CF
PENDLETON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
4490 West Reformatory Road
PENDLETON, IN 46064
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?