THOMPSON v. DOWNEY et al

Filing 8

ENTRY and ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - Plaintiff Wesley Thompson's renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis [dkt. 7] is granted. Mr. Thompson's Eighth Amendment claim is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Thompson's state law negligence claim. Mr. Thompson shall have through June 24, 2015, in which to show cause why judgment consistent with this Entry should not issue. **SEE ENTRY** Copy to Plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 5/28/2015. (AH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

WESLEY THOMPSON,

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

Plaintiff,
vs.
DOWNEY Morgan County Sheriff,
KINTON Morgan County Jail Officer,
DAVID ROGERS Morgan County Jail
Commander,
Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-00113-WTL-WGH

Entry Granting In Forma Pauperis Status, Dismissing Complaint,
and Directing Plaintiff to Show Cause
I.
Plaintiff Wesley Thompson’s renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis [dkt. 7] is
granted. Given Mr. Thompson’s financial status, the assessment of an initial partial filing fee is
not feasible as this time.
II.
Mr. Thompson is a prisoner currently confined in Putnamville Correctional Facility.
Because Mr. Thompson is a “prisoner” as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h), this Court has an
obligation under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) to screen his complaint before service on the defendants.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the Court must dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief. 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,

[the] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a
claim for 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). Pro se complaints such as that filed by Mr. Thompson
are construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers. Obriecht v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 491 n.2 (7th Cir. 2008).
Mr. Thompson alleges that, when he was imprisoned in Morgan County Jail, Defendant
Officer Kinton passed out “used” razors to several inmates, including Mr. Thompson, who shaved
with those razors. When one inmate complained to Officer Kinton that his razor was used, Officer
Kinton allegedly took the used razor back, but continued to pass out razors from the “contaminated
razor container.” Mr. Thompson alleges that Morgan County Jail procedures dictate that old and
contaminated razors are supposed to be replaced with new ones. Because this did not occur, Mr.
Thompson asserts that Officer Kinton violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel
and unusual punishment, and he also brings a state law negligence claim based on the same
allegations.
Mr. Thompson’s Eighth Amendment claim must be dismissed. To prevail on an Eighth
Amendment claim, a prisoner must show that (1) the conditions in the prison were objectively
“sufficiently serious so that a prison official’s act or omission results in the denial of the minimal
civilized measure of life’s necessities,” and (2) prison officials acted with deliberate indifference
to those conditions. Townsend v. Fuchs, 522 F.3d 765, 773 (7th Cir. 2008) (internal citations and
quotation marks omitted). Mr. Thompson’s allegations do not establish that his conditions of
confinement involved the deprivation of a single identifiable human need or the denial of the
minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities. See Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298-305
(1991). He alleges only that he shaved with an old, contaminated razor on one occasion, and he

does not allege that any harm came to him because of this incident. The Eighth Amendment
protects only against extreme deprivations will support an Eighth Amendment claim. See Delaney
v. DeTella, 256 F.3d 679, 683 (7th Cir. 2001). Mr. Thompson’s allegation that he used an old
razor on one occasion fail to meet this high standard. See Duran v. Elrod, 760 F.2d 756 (7th Cir.
1985) (“The conditions of imprisonment, whether of pretrial detainees or of convicted criminals,
do not reach even the threshold of constitutional concern until a showing is made of ‘genuine
privations and hardship over an extended period of time.’”) (quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520,
542 (1979)). Accordingly, Mr. Thompson’s Eighth Amendment claim must be dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Having determined that Mr. Thompson’s federal claim must be dismissed, the Court must
decide whether it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Thompson’s state law
negligence claim.

The Court ultimately has discretion whether to exercise supplemental

jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s state law claims. Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF BIO, Inc., 556 U.S.
635, 639 (2009); see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (“The district courts may decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over
which it has original jurisdiction . . . .”). When deciding whether to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction, “‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the
litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v.
Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484
U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988)). “When all federal claims in a suit in federal court are dismissed before
trial, the presumption is that the court will relinquish federal jurisdiction over any supplemental
state-law claims.” Al’s Serv. Ctr. v. BP Prods. N. Am., Inc., 599 F.3d 720, 727 (7th Cir. 2010).

All of the relevant factors weigh in favor of the Court declining to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Mr. Thompson’s state law negligence claim. The litigation is at the earliest
possible stage: only the complaint has been filed, and Defendants have not been served. Judicial
economy would thus not be promoted by this Court retaining jurisdiction. Furthermore, comity
favors Indiana courts resolving Mr. Thompson’s state law claims. Finally, there are no fairness or
convenience concerns that militate toward retaining jurisdiction over the state law claim at this
early stage of the litigation. For these reasons, the presumption of relinquishing jurisdiction should
be followed, and the Court, in its discretion, declines to continue exercising supplemental
jurisdiction over Mr. Thompson’s state law claims.
III.
Mr. Thompson’s Eighth Amendment claim is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted, and the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr.
Thompson’s state law negligence claim. Mr. Thompson shall have through June 24, 2015, in
which to show cause why judgment consistent with this Entry should not issue. See Luevano v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 722 F.3d 1014, 1022 (7th Cir. 2013) (“Without at least an opportunity to
amend or to respond to an order to show cause, an IFP applicant’s case could be tossed out of court
without giving the applicant any timely notice or opportunity to be heard to clarify, contest, or
simply request leave to amend.”). If he fails to do so, the action will be dismissed for the reasons
set forth in this Entry. Any dismissal regarding his state law claim, however, shall be without
prejudice to reflect that nothing in this action will prohibit Mr. Thompson from pursuing any state
law claims in state court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________________________
Date: 5/28/15

Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
WESLEY THOMPSON
232254
PUTNAMVILLE - CF
PUTNAMVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Inmate Mail/Parcels
1946 West U.S. Hwy 40
Greencastle, IN 46135