BOOTH v. COSSA-RHODES et al

Filing 5

ENTRY Discussing Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings; Plaintiff shall have through 4/10/2012 to supplement his complaint. (Plaintiff served via US Mail) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 3/9/2012.(SMD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SHAUN K. BOOTH,
Plaintiff,
vs.
COSSA-RHODES, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:12-cv-0030-JMS-WGH

Entry Discussing Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings
The complaint is subject to the screening requirement of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b). Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir. 2006). Pursuant to
this statute, "[a] complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim if the
allegations, taken as true, show that plaintiff is not entitled to relief." Jones v. Bock,
127 S. Ct. 910, 921 (2007).
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. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007) and quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). To survive a motion to dismiss, the
complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim
to 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,
129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quotations omitted). Pro se complaints such as that
filed by Shaun K. Booth, are construed liberally and held to a less stringent
standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94;
Obriecht v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 491 n.2 (7th Cir. 2008).
Booth has sued members of the Management Review Committee at the
prison where he is confined for their roles in deciding to place him in the Blue/Gold
Program without due process. Booth alleges that the Blue/Gold Program is an
isolated lockdown behavior modification program which imposes an atypical
hardship by restricting every aspect of his daily life. In addition, Booth alleges that

the program was not promulgated in accordance with Federal Law or Bureau of
Prisons rules. He seeks money damages.
The facts alleged in the complaint are insufficient to support a claim of denial
of due process. The plaintiff shall have through April 10, 2012, in which to
supplement his complaint with factual allegations which support his claim that the
conditions of his confinement in the Blue/Gold Progam impose an atypical and
significant hardship in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life. This is the
due process standard established by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995), and it
is that standard which must be met if a plausible claim is to be asserted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

03/09/2012
Date: __________________
_______________________________

Distribution:
Shaun K. Booth
R11145-078
Terre Haute FCI
Inmate Mail/Parcels
P.O. Box 33
Terre Haute, IN 47808

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