EADY v. LARIVA et al

Filing 4

ENTRY Directing Further Proceedings - The plaintiff's 2 motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of Forty Seven Dollars and Seventy-Seven Cents ($47.77). He shall have through November 25, 2014, in which to pay this sum to the clerk of the district court. Given these principles of liability the claims against each of the named defendants are legally insufficient and must be dismissed. The dismissal of the com plaint will not lead to the dismissal of the action at this time. Eady shall have through November 25, 2014, in which to file an amended complaint that states a viable claim for relief in light of the deficiencies noted in Part III of this Entr y. If no amended complaint is filed, the action will be dismissed in its entirety for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. **SEE ENTRY** Copy mailed to Plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 10/31/2014. (AH) Modified on 10/31/2014 (AH).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

AUBREY LYNN EADY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
L. LARIVA Warden, THOMAS E. BAILEY
M.D., GARY S. ULRICH D.O.,
ASHLEY MATCHETT P.T.,
KIM KLINK AHSA, ERIC WILSON M.D.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:14-cv-00325-JMS-WGH

Entry Dismissing Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings
Plaintiff Aubrey Lynn Eady, a prisoner at the Federal Correctional Institution in Terre
Haute, Indiana, filed this civil action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents,
403 U.S. 388 (1971). He alleges that the Warden and five medical care providers are deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. He seeks injunctive
relief and money damages.
I.
The plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [dkt. 2] is granted. The plaintiff is
assessed an initial partial filing fee of Forty Seven Dollars and Seventy-Seven Cents ($47.77). He
shall have through November 25, 2014, in which to pay this sum to the clerk of the district court.
II.
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, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007).

In determining whether the complaint states a claim, the Court applies the same standard as when
addressing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Lagerstrom v.
Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir. 2006). To survive dismissal under federal pleading
standards,
[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, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Thus, a “plaintiff must do better than putting a few
words on paper that, in the hands of an imaginative reader, might suggest that something has
happened to her that might be redressed by the law.” Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 403
(7th Cir. 2010) (emphasis in original).
III.
As presented the complaint fails to state a plausible claim for relief against any defendant.
The constitutional provision pertinent to Eady’s claim is the Eighth Amendment’s proscription
against the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment. Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31
(1993). Specifically, the Eighth Amendment imposes a duty on prison officials to provide medical
care to inmates. Vance v. Peters, 97 F.3d 987, 991 (7th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1230
(1997). In order for an inmate to state a claim for medical mistreatment or denial of medical care,
the prisoner must allege “acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference
to serious medical needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). Deliberate indifference
exists only when an official “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an inmate’s health; the
official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial
risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.
825, 837 (1994) (construing Estelle).

Prison officials may exhibit deliberate indifference to a known condition through inaction,
Gayton v. McCoy, 593 F.3d 610, 623–24 (7th Cir. 2010); Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv.,
577 F.3d 816, 832 (7th Cir. 2009), or by persisting with inappropriate treatment, Gonzalez v.
Feinerman, 663 F.3d 311, 314 (7th Cir.2011); Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645, 653–54 (7th Cir.
2005). Prison officials might also show their deliberate indifference by delaying necessary
treatment and thus aggravating the injury or needlessly prolonging an inmate's pain. Gomez v.
Randle, 680 F.3d 859, 865 (7th Cir. 2012). It is well-settled, however, that while incarcerated, an
inmate is not entitled to the best possible care or to receive particular treatment of his choice. See
Forbes v. Edgar, 112 F.3d 262, 267 (7th Cir. 1997). Negligence, even gross negligence, is
insufficient to establish deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment. See Farmer, 511
U.S. at 835; Mathis v. Fairman, 120 F.3d 88, 92 (7th Cir. 1997); Snipes v. DeTella, 95 F.3d 586,
590 (7th Cir. 1996).
A corollary to the element of deliberate indifference is that a defendant can only be liable
for the actions or omissions in which he personally participated. Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d
724, 734 (7th Cir. 2001). “Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to . . . § 1983 suits, a plaintiff
must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official’s own individual actions,
has violated the Constitution.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1948 (2009). “[A]n official meets
the personal involvement requirement when she acts or fails to act with a deliberate or reckless
disregard of plaintiff's constitutional rights, or if the conduct causing the constitutional deprivation
occurs at her direction or with her knowledge and consent.” Black v. Lane, 22 F.3d 1395, 1401
(7th Cir. 1994) (quoting Smith v. Rowe, 761 F.2d 360, 369 (7th Cir. 1985)) (citations and internal
quotations omitted). Without such an allegation, there can be no recovery. Burks v. Raemisch, 555

F.3d 592, 593-94 (7th Cir. 2009) (“Liability depends on each defendant's knowledge and actions,
not on the knowledge or actions of persons they supervise. . . .”).
Given these principles of liability the claims against each of the named defendants are
legally insufficient and must be dismissed. The court reaches this conclusion because there is no
allegation that these defendants “acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind.” Walker v.
Benjamin, 293 F.3d 1030, 1037 (7th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). See also Potter v. Clark, 497
F.2d 1206, 1207 (7th Cir. 1974)(“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.”). Because the complaint fails to state a claim, it
is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
IV.
The dismissal of the complaint will not lead to the dismissal of the action at this time. Eady
shall have through November 25, 2014, in which to file an amended complaint that states a
viable claim for relief in light of the deficiencies noted in Part III of this Entry.
In filing an amended complaint, the plaintiff shall conform to the following guidelines: (a)
the amended complaint shall comply with the requirement of Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure that pleadings contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief. . . . ;” (b) the amended complaint shall comply with the requirement of
Rule 10 that the allegations in a complaint be made in numbered paragraphs, each of which should
recite, as far as practicable, only a single set of circumstances; (c) the amended complaint must
identify what legal injury he claims to have suffered and which individuals are responsible for
each such legal injury; and (d) the amended complaint shall contain a clear statement of the relief

that is sought. The amended complaint shall have the words “amended complaint” and the proper
case number, 2:14-cv-00325-JMS-WGH, on the first page.
If no amended complaint is filed, the action will be dismissed in its entirety for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: October 31, 2014_

Distribution:

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

Financial Deputy Clerk
AUBREY LYNN EADY
10959-040
TERRE HAUTE - FCI
TERRE HAUTE FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
Inmate Mail/Parcels
P.O. BOX 33
TERRE HAUTE, IN 47808