THOMAS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al

Filing 56

Entry Discussing Amended Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings - Dr. W. Wilson, Mr. A. Ndife, and Harrell Watts appear to be appropriate defendants from which the plaintiff could obtain the injunctive relief he seeks in his amended complaint. All other defendants are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The clerk is designated, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3), to issue process to defendants Dr. W. Wilson and Mr. A. Ndife. (See Entry.) Copy to plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 10/3/2012.(RSF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
RALPH THOMAS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:11-cv-187-JMS-WGH

Entry Discussing Amended Complaint
and Directing Further Proceedings
The amended complaint filed on April 19, 2012, [51] has been screened
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief ordering
Bureau of Prison medical providers to provide treatment for his disabling pain
related to severe muscle cramps throughout his body. The plaintiff names a variety
of medical providers in the complaint explaining how their responses to his requests
and grievances were inadequate and in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The
plaintiff specifically seeks to add individual defendants to this action, including Dr.
W. Wilson, (described by the plaintiff as the Chief Medical Director) and Mr. A.
Ndife (who allegedly represented that plaintiff received treatment for his muscle
cramps when he had not). See dkt. 50.
Dr. W. Wilson, Mr. A. Ndife, and Harrell Watts appear to be appropriate
defendants from which the plaintiff could obtain the injunctive relief he seeks in his
amended complaint pursuant to theory recognized in Bivens v. Six Unknown
Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). See Corr. Services Corp. v. Malesko,
534 U.S. 61, 74 (2001) (recognizing that a lawsuit for “injunctive relief has long been
recognized as the proper means for preventing entities from acting
unconstitutionally.”); Glaus v. Anderson, 408 F.3d 382, 389 (7th Cir. 2005) (stating
“injunctive relief, [] is a proper remedy for a Bivens claim”). These officials are
necessarily sued in their individual capacity only. Id. Any claim against the
defendants in their official capacities is barred by the United States’ sovereign
immunity.

All other defendants are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. See Memorandum Opinion of April 29, 2011. The
clerk is directed to terminate the United States of America and the Federal Bureau
of Prisons on the docket.
The clerk is designated, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3), to issue process
to defendants Dr. W. Wilson and Mr. A. Ndife. Defendant Harrell Watts has already
appeared by counsel. Process shall consist of a summons. Because plaintiff Thomas
is proceeding under the theory recognized in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents
of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), personal service is
required. Robinson v. Turner, 15 F.3d 82 (7th Cir. 1994). The Marshal for this
District or his Deputy shall serve the summons, together with a copy of the
amended complaint, filed on April 19, 2012, and a copy of this Entry, on the
defendant and on the officials designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(3), at the
expense of the United States.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

10/03/2012
Date: __________________
_______________________________

Distribution:
RALPH THOMAS
R18369-001
TERRE HAUTE
U.S. PENITENTIARY
Inmate Mail/Parcels
P.O. BOX 33
TERRE HAUTE, IN 47808
All Electronically Registered Counsel

Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana