EINES v. MAYNARD et al

Filing 8

ORDER SCREENING COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING SERVICE OF PROCESS - The clerk is directed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to the defendants in the manner specified by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d). Process shall consist of the complaint, dkt. 1 , applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), and this Order. The clerk is directed to serve the Indiana Department of Correction employees electronically and to mail a courtesy copy of the service documents to Christopher Cody (SEE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION). Signed by Judge James Patrick Hanlon on 4/26/2021. Copies distributed pursuant to distribution list. (DWH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
BRIAN EINES,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
MAYNARD Officer,
)
EDMONDS Officer,
)
SERGEI Officer,
)
ZATECKY Warden,
)
ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES LLC, )
)
Defendants.
)

No. 1:21-cv-00354-JPH-MPB

ORDER SCREENING COMPLAINT
AND DIRECTING SERVICE OF PROCESS
Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC) inmate Brian Eines commenced this 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 action on February 12, 2021, and paid an initial partial filing fee on March 23, 2021. Dkt. 6.
The Court now screens the complaint and makes the following rulings.
I.
Screening Standard
Because the plaintiff is a prisoner, his complaint is subject to the screening requirements
of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). This statute directs that the Court shall dismiss a complaint or any claim
within a complaint which "(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief."
Id. To satisfy the notice-pleading standard of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a
complaint must provide a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief," which is sufficient to provide the defendant with "fair notice" of the claim and
its basis. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (per curiam) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v.

1

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) and quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)); see also Tamayo v.
Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir. 2008) (same). The Court construes pro se pleadings
liberally and holds pro se pleadings to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers. Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 776 (7th Cir. 2015).
II.
The Complaint
The complaint names five defendants: Officers Maynard, Edmonds, and Sergei, Warden
Zatecky, and Aramark Correctional Services LLC (Aramark).
The following allegations are set forth in the plaintiff's complaint. On November 25, 2020,
the plaintiff's unit was on lock-down status. Lunch trays and dinner sacks were delivered at 11:00
am by an unsupervised inmate. Officers Maynard, Edmonds, and Sergei were tasked with
delivering the meals to the inmates in the unit, but they failed to do so until 3:30 pm. During the
delay, the food sat on a cart at room temperature. The cart was not insulated, cooled, or heated.
After eating the food, the plaintiff became ill with symptoms of nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.
He submitted a medical request but was never treated.
The plaintiff contends that Warden Zatecky implemented a system-wide policy allowing
inmates to be served unsanitary and contaminated food. He further alleges that defendant Aramark,
the company providing food services in the facility, fails to properly store food and supervise food
distribution. He seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages.
III.
Discussion of Claims
The plaintiff's Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claims against the defendants
shall proceed as pleaded in the complaint. The claim against Aramark is proceeding as a policy
and practice claim. This summary of claims includes all the viable claims identified by the Court.

2

If the plaintiff believes that additional claims were alleged in the complaint, but not identified by
the Court, he shall have through May 17, 2021, in which to identify those claims.
IV.
Conclusion and Service of Process
The clerk is directed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to the defendants
in the manner specified by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d). Process shall consist of the complaint, dkt. [1],
applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver
of Service of Summons), and this Order.
The clerk is directed to serve the Indiana Department of Correction employees
electronically and to mail a courtesy copy of the service documents to Christopher Cody.
SO ORDERED.
Date: 4/26/2021

Distribution:
BRIAN EINES
988189
PENDLETON - CF
PENDLETON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Inmate Mail/Parcels
4490 West Reformatory Road
PENDLETON, IN 46064
Electronic service to Indiana Department of Correction:
Warden Zatecky
Office Maynard
Officer Edmonds
Officer Sergei
(All at Pendleton Correctional Facility)
3

Aramark Correctional Services LLC
1101 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107

Courtesy copy to:
Christopher Cody
Hume Smith Geddes Green & Simmons, LLP
54 Monument Circle, Suite 400
Indianapolis, IN 46204

4