ECHOLS v. POWERS et al
Filing
7
Entry Granting Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Dismissing Complaint and Directing Entry of Final Judgment - The plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis [Dkt. 3] is granted. The assessment of even an initial partial filing fee is not feasible at this time. Dismissal of the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) is mandatory. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. (See Entry.) Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 7/16/2013. (RSF)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
CARL A. ECHOLS,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
vs.
OFFICER POWERS, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 2:13-cv-00254-WTL-WGH
Entry Granting Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Dismissing Complaint and
Directing Entry of Final Judgment
I.
The plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis [Dkt. 3] is granted. The assessment
of even an initial partial filing fee is not feasible at this time.
II.
A.
The complaint is subject to the screening requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 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 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 Carl Echols, 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).
B.
Plaintiff Echols, an Indiana prisoner, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. The names three defendants: 1) Correctional Officers Powers; 2) Correctional Officer
Lovelace; and 3) counselor Wells. He alleges that his Eighth Amendment rights, made applicable
to state action by interpretation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, have
been violated.
Plaintiff alleges that he was transferred from Pendleton Correctional Facility
(“Pendleton”) to Wabash Valley Correctional Facility (“Wabash Valley”) on March 21, 2012. He
alleges that he was transported with five other offenders from Pendleton to Wabash Valley by
Officers Powers and Lovelace in a paddy wagon. The trip took 2 ¾ hours. He alleges that he
informed Officer Powers of his having prior back injuries before they left Pendleton, and that
Officer Powers placed a chain and black box tightly around his waist which aggravated
plaintiff’s sciatic nerve. He alleges that he experienced sciatica nerve symptoms including a
burning sensation and pain, numbness, and tingling in his left foot, leg and back as a result of
having to sit in an awkward position during the trip. He alleges that Officer Powers is liable
under a tort claim action as a tortfeasor. He also alleges that Officer Powers was liable as a
transportation supervisor with some personal involvement.
Plaintiff alleges that Officer Lovelace helped with the transfer of offenders by paddy
wagon. Plaintiff also alleges that Officer Lovelace caused a breakdown in the processing of the
plaintiff’s request for health care service.
The plaintiff further alleges that he immediately made an informal or formal complaint to
counselor Wells upon his arrival at Wabash Valley. Plaintiff alleges that Wells did not want to
cooperate in this matter by giving plaintiff a grievance form.
The Court discerns that the claim against Officer Powers is one of excessive force under
the Eighth Amendment. To state an Eighth Amendment claim of excessive force, the plaintiff
must allege facts sufficient to show that force was employed to maliciously and sadistically
cause him harm rather than in a good faith attempt to maintain or restore discipline. Harper v.
Albert, 400 F.3d 1052, 1065 (7th Cir. 2005). The plaintiff has not alleged that Officer Powers’
use of force, if any, exceeded the amount necessary to restrain the plaintiff during his
transportation from one prison to another. There are no allegations of any conduct that rose to the
level of malice or sadistic force.
In addition, to the extent plaintiff alleges that Officer Powers was negligent, he has failed
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Harper v. Albert, 400 F.3d 1052, 1065 (7th Cir.
2005) (negligence or even gross negligence is not enough to state a claim under § 1983). The
complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against Officer Powers and the
claims against him are dismissed.
The allegations against Officer Lovelace fail to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. Plaintiff does not allege any excessive force on the part of Officer Lovelace, nor does he
allege any facts in support of his assertion that Lovelace “caused a breakdown in the request for
health care service processing between a serious medical need and a provider.” (Complaint at
page 22). The claim against Officer Lovelace is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.
The claim against counselor Wells is that he did not want to provide a grievance form to
the plaintiff. The attachments to the complaint, however, reflect that plaintiff did, in fact, file a
grievance concerning the March 21, 2012, incident. In addition, to the extent plaintiff alleges that
counselor Wells interfered with plaintiff’s ability to file a grievance, such claim fails to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. See Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1430 (7th Cir.
1996) (Aa state=s inmate grievance procedures do not give rise to a liberty interest protected by
the Due Process Clause@). The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
against counselor Wells and the claim against him is dismissed.
To the extent the plaintiff seeks to bring a state law claim of negligence, because no
federal claim has been stated, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over
any other asserted state law claim. 28 U.S.C. ' 1367(c)(3); Thurman v. Village of Homewood,
446 F.3d 682, 687 (7th Cir. 2006).
III.
“[A] plaintiff can plead himself out of court by alleging facts that show there is no viable
claim.” Pugh v. Tribune Co., 521 F.3d 686, 699 (7th. Cir. 2008). That is the situation here. The
plaintiff has alleged no viable claim against any defendant. Dismissal of the action pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) is therefore mandatory. Gladney v. Pendleton Corr. Facility, 302 F.3d
773, 775 (7th Cir. 2002). Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
07/16/2013
Date: __________________
_______________________________
Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Distribution:
CARL A. ECHOLS
866351
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility
Electronic Service Participant -- Court Only
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?