KARP v. KNIGHT et al

Filing 9

ENTRY SCREENING AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING ISSUANCE OF PROCESS - The clerk is directed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3) to issue process to Defendants (1) Officer Issacs, (2) Captain Ridgeway, (3) Major Fox, (4) Officer Will iams, (5) Officer Frye, (6) Sergeant Harris, and (7) Officer Ross in the manner specified by Rule 4(d). Process shall consist of the amended complaint (dkt. 6 ), applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons an d Waiver of Service of Summons), and this Entry. The claims discussed in Part III are the only claims identified by the Court. If Mr. Karp believes he asserted claims in the amended complaint that the Court has not addressed, he shall have through December 14, 2020, to notify the Court. The clerk is directed to terminate Wendy Knight, Mrs. Ritchie-Gardner, and the Unknown Supervisor as defendants. (See Order.) Copy to Plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 11/17/2020.(NAD)

Case 1:20-cv-02012-TWP-TAB Document 9 Filed 11/17/20 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 84

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
VICTOR KARP,
Plaintiff,
v.
WENDY KNIGHT, et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:20-cv-02012-TWP-TAB

ENTRY SCREENING AMENDED COMPLAINT
AND DIRECTING ISSUANCE OF PROCESS
Victor Karp is an inmate at Pendleton Correctional Facility (PCF). Because Mr. Karp is a
prisoner, the Court is obligated to screen his amended complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c).
I. Screening Standard
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 Cesal v. Moats, 851 F.3d 714, 720 (7th Cir. 2017). To survive
dismissal,
[the amended] 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.

Case 1:20-cv-02012-TWP-TAB Document 9 Filed 11/17/20 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 85

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Mr. Karp's pro se pleading is construed liberally and
held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Perez v. Fenoglio, 792
F.3d 768, 776 (7th Cir. 2015).
II. The Amended Complaint
The amended complaint describes incidents that took place at PCF between June and
August 2020. Mr. Karp asserts claims for damages against ten Indiana Department of Correction
employees stationed at PCF.
In June 2020, Mr. Karp held a job in the prison brake shop. Officer Issacs conducted a
"shakedown" of the brake shop on June 16, 2020, and confiscated some of Mr. Karp's property.
On June 26, Mr. Karp wrote an informal grievance regarding the shakedown.
On June 29, Officer Issacs conducted a second shakedown of the brake shop and again
confiscated Mr. Karp's property. He stated that he was conducting the shakedown because of
Mr. Karp's informal grievance. Captain Ridgeway and Major Fox directed Officer Issacs to
complete the second shakedown.
On July 1, Mr. Karp filed a grievance regarding the second shakedown. Two days later,
Officers Williams and Frye woke him up and took him to an office with no security video. He was
surrounded in the office by Officer Williams, Officer Frye, Sergeant Harris, and Officer Ross.
Captain Ridgeway entered and stated he would have Mr. Karp fired from his job and moved to
segregation if he did not stop harassing officers with grievances.
Mr. Karp filed a third grievance regarding his confrontation by Captain Ridgeway and the
other officers. Within a few days, Officer Issacs conducted another shakedown of the brake shop
and threw away Mr. Karp's property.

2

Case 1:20-cv-02012-TWP-TAB Document 9 Filed 11/17/20 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 86

On August 5, 2020, Mr. Karp filed a grievance against Warden Wendy Knight for
instituting a policy that prohibited inmates from taking coffee into the brake shop.
III. Analysis
The action shall proceed with First Amendment claims against Officer Issacs, Captain
Ridgeway, Major Fox, Officer Williams, Officer Frye, Sergeant Harris, and Officer Ross pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. These claims are based on the allegations set forth in Part II above and the
theory that the defendants acted with the purpose of retaliating against Mr. Karp for pursuing
grievances or deterring him from pursuing future grievances.
Claims against Mrs. Ritchie-Gardner and the defendant identified as "Unknown
Supervisor" are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. "Only
someone personally responsible in a constitutional violation can be held liable under [42 U.S.C.]
§ 1983." Wojcik v. Cook Cnty., 803 F. App'x 25, 27 (7th Cir. 2020) (citing Wilson v. Warren Cnty.,
Ill., 830 F.3d 464, 469 (7th Cir. 2016)). The amended complaint asserts no allegations describing
conduct by Mrs. Ritchie-Gardner or the unknown supervisor. Accordingly, Mr. Karp has not raised
a reasonable inference that these defendants were personally involved in any action that deprived
Mr. Karp of a right.
Similarly, all claims against Wendy Knight are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. "Liability under § 1983 is direct rather than vicarious; supervisors
are responsible for their own acts but not for those of subordinates, or for failing to ensure that
subordinates carry out their tasks correctly." Horshaw v. Casper, 910 F.3d 1027, 1029 (7th Cir.
2018). The amended complaint's only allegations against Ms. Knight are that she (1) knows that
Captain Ridgeway has been the subject of harassment and discrimination grievances and lawsuits
by other prisoners and officers, (2) that she disallowed coffee in the brake shop, and (3) she

3

Case 1:20-cv-02012-TWP-TAB Document 9 Filed 11/17/20 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 87

directed Lieutenant Gaunt to post a sign announcing that policy. Mr. Karp does not allege that
Ms. Knight was involved in any way with the threatening and retaliatory conduct described in Part
II, and he does not assert that the no-coffee policy violates any right.
IV. Issuance of Process and Conclusion
The clerk is directed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3) to issue process
to Defendants (1) Officer Issacs, (2) Captain Ridgeway, (3) Major Fox, (4) Officer Williams,
(5) Officer Frye, (6) Sergeant Harris, and (7) Officer Ross in the manner specified by Rule 4(d).
Process shall consist of the amended complaint (dkt. [6]), applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and
Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), and this Entry.
The claims discussed in Part III are the only claims identified by the Court. If Mr. Karp
believes he asserted claims in the amended complaint that the Court has not addressed, he shall
have through December 14, 2020, to notify the Court.
The clerk is directed to terminate Wendy Knight, Mrs. Ritchie-Gardner, and the
Unknown Supervisor as defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date:

11/17/2020

4

Case 1:20-cv-02012-TWP-TAB Document 9 Filed 11/17/20 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 88

Distribution:
VICTOR KARP
149143
PENDLETON - CORRECTIONAL INDUSTRIAL FACILITY
CORRECTIONAL INDUSTRIAL FACILITY
Inmate Mail/Parcels
5124 West Reformatory Road
PENDLETON, IN 46064
Electronic service to Indiana Department of Correction employees at Pendleton Correctional
Facility:
(1) Officer Issacs
(2) Captain Ridgeway
(3) Major Fox
(4) Officer Williams
(5) Officer Frye
(6) Sergeant Harris
(7) Officer Ross

5