ODOM v. PRISON HEALTH SERVICES et al

Filing 8

For reasons set forth in this ENTRY Prison Health Services (PHS) and John Dallas are dismissed as defendants from the case. The claims for injunctive relief are dismissed as moot because the plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at the Wabash Valley Co rrectional Facility or under the care of the defendants. NO partial fianl judgment shall issue at this time as to the claim(s) resolved in this entry. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 10/5/2012. Copies mailed to Plaintiff and Dr. Talens, Nurse Fliner, and Kim Grey via U.S. Mail. (NS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

GLENN D. ODOM, II,
Plaintiff,
vs.
PRISON HEALTH SERVICES,
JOHN DALLAS,
DR. TALENS doctor,
NURSE FLINER Nurse,
KIM GREY,
Defendants.

No. 2:12-cv-00251-JMS-MJD

Entry Discussing Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings
I.
Plaintiff Glen Odom, a Kentucky State prisoner, filed this civil action alleging
that he was denied constitutionally adequate medical care while confined at the
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility, an Indiana state prison, in violation of the
Eighth Amendment. He also alleges state law claims.
The complaint is now subject to the screening requirement of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b). Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir. 2006). This statute
directs that the court 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, 551 U.S. at 93 (per
curiam) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) and quoting
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). The complaint “must actually suggest that the plaintiff has
a right to relief, by providing allegations that raise a right to relief above the
speculative level.” Windy City Metal Fabricators & Supply, Inc. v. CIT Tech. Fin.
Servs., 536 F.3d 663, 668 (7th Cir. 2008) (quoting Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d
1074, 1084 (7th Cir. 2008)).

Applying the standard set forth above, claims against the Prison Health
Services (PHS) must be dismissed because there is no allegation that PHS has a
custom or policy of rendering inadequate medical care to prison inmates and
because the doctrine of respondeat superior is not a viable theory of recovery under
the circumstances of this case. Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d
816, 828 (7th Cir. 2009).
John Dallas is dismissed as a defendant because there is no allegation of
wrongdoing on his part to support either a constitutional violation or a state law
claim of negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress. “Where a complaint
alleges no specific act or conduct on the part of the defendant and the complaint is
silent as to the defendant except for his name appearing in the caption, the
complaint is properly dismissed.” Potter v. Clark, 497 F.2d 1206, 1207 (7th Cir.
1974); see Black v. Lane, 22 F.3d 1395, 1401 and n.8 (7th Cir. 1994)(district court
properly dismissed complaint against one defendant when the complaint alleged
only that defendant was charged with the administration of the institution and was
responsible for all persons at the institution). To the extent this defendant is
included as a defendant because of his supervisory position, this position alone is
not adequate to support the imposition of liability. See West v. Waymire, 114 F.3d
646, 649 (7th Cir. 1997) (“the doctrine of respondeat superior is not available to a
plaintiff in a section 1983 suit”).
The claims for injunctive relief are dismissed as moot because the
plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility or
under the care of the defendants. Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506
U.S. 9, 12 (1992)(A[I]f an event occurs while a case is pending on appeal that makes
it impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief whatever to a prevailing
party, the appeal must be dismissed,@ for federal courts have Ano authority to give
opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or
rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.@) (internal
quotation marks omitted); Lehn v. Holmes, 364 F.3d 862, 871 (7th Cir. 2004)
(“[W]hen a prisoner who seeks injunctive relief for a condition specific to a
particular prison is transferred out of that prison, the need for relief . . . become[s]
moot.”); Higgason v. Farley, 83 F.3d 862, 871 (7th Cir. 1996) (same).
II.
No partial final judgment shall issue at this time as to the claim(s) resolved
in this Entry.

The claims against Dr. Talens, Nurse Fliner, and Kim Grey (in their
individual capacities for money damages) shall proceed. The clerk is designated,
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue and serve process on these defendants in
the manner specified by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1). Process shall consist of the
complaint, applicable forms and this Entry.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

10/05/2012
Date: __________________

Distribution:

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

Glenn D. Odom, II
219489
K.S.P
7-B #8
266 Water Street
Eddyville, KY 42039
Dr. Talens
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility
6908 S. Old U.S. Highway 41
P.O. Box 1111
Carlisle , IN 47838
Nurse Fliner
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility
6908 S. Old U.S. Highway 41
P.O. Box 1111
Carlisle , IN 47838
Kim Grey
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility
6908 S. Old U.S. Highway 41
P.O. Box 1111
Carlisle , IN 47838
Note to Clerk: Processing this document requires actions in addition to docketing and distribution.