HOWARD v. MILLER et al

Filing 21

Entry Discussing Amended Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings - Based on the required screening, the plaintiff's claims shall proceed as a claim that Sgt. Miller and Craig Cantiff have violated his Eighth Amendment rights and as a claim that Sgt. Miller has retaliated against him in violation of the First Amendment. Consistent with this ruling, the motion to screen the amended complaint, dkt. 18 , is granted. The motion to file a supplemental complaint, dkt. 17 , is granted to t he extent that that filing provides elaboration and clarification of the claims which are proceeding. Defendant Sergeant Miller has already appeared in this action. He shall have twenty-one days to answer the amended complaint and the supplement. Th e clerk is designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to defendant Caniff in the manner specified by Rule 4(d). Process shall consist of the amended complaint (docket 12), the supplemental complaint (dkt 17) applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), and this Entry. The Court notes that it has previously attempted without success to serve defendant Caniff. If Caniff is no longer employed at the N ew Castle Correctional Facility, counsel for Sergeant Miller is requested to submit Caniff's last known address so that he can be served. This filing may be made ex parte. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/1/2018. (Copy mailed to Plaintiff and Craig Caniff) (MEJ)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
LANCE HOWARD,
Plaintiff,
v.
MILLER Sgt.,
CRAIG CANIFF,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:17-cv-04043-TWP-TAB

Entry Discussing Amended Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings
Plaintiff Lance Howard, an Indiana inmate, filed this action 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged
in his initial complaint that the defendants refuse to provide him his prescription eye glasses so
that he can see. He has since filed an amended complaint and a motion to supplement.
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 the 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).
The plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants Sgt.
Miller and Craig Caniff. He alleges that he is legally blind and the defendants refuse to provide
him his prescription eye glasses so that he can see. Further, he alleges that Craig Caniff falsified
records to make it appear that he received his eye glasses, but then told the plaintiff he will not
be given them. The amended complaint contains these allegations as well as an allegation that
Sgt. Miller has retaliated against him for filing a grievance based on these claims. The plaintiff
seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages.
Based on the required screening, the plaintiff’s claims shall proceed as a claim that Sgt.
Miller and Craig Cantiff have violated his Eighth Amendment rights and as a claim that Sgt.
Miller has retaliated against him in violation of the First Amendment.
Consistent with this ruling, the motion to screen the amended complaint, dkt. [18], is
granted. The motion to file a supplemental complaint, dkt. [17], is granted to the extent that that
filing provides elaboration and clarification of the claims which are proceeding.
Defendant Sergeant Miller has already appeared in this action. He shall have twenty-one
days to answer the amended complaint and the supplement. The clerk is designated pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to defendant Caniff in the manner specified by Rule 4(d).
Process shall consist of the amended complaint (docket 12), the supplemental complaint (dkt 17)
applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver
of Service of Summons), and this Entry. The Court notes that it has previously attempted
without success to serve defendant Caniff. If Caniff is no longer employed at the New

Castle Correctional Facility, counsel for Sergeant Miller is requested to submit Caniff’s
last known address so that he can be served. This filing may be made ex parte.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 3/1/2018

Distribution:
Lance Howard
250494
Putnamville Correctional Facility
Electronic Service Participant – Court Only
Craig Caniff
EMPLOYEE
New Castle Correctional Facility
1000 Van Nuys Road
P.O. Box E
New Castle, IN 47362
All electronically registered counsel